How long does it take to become a citizen in Canada?

– To be eligible to become a Canadian citizen, you must: be a permanent resident. have lived in Canada for 3 out of the last 5 years. have filed your taxes, if you need to. pass a test on your rights, responsibilities and knowledge of Canada. prove your language skills.

– Eligibility Criteria. In order to apply for Canadian citizenship you must: Provide proof that you know how to speak and write in 1 of Canada’s official …

– Children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Canadian Citizenship to prove they .

The bar for citizenship is higher. If you’re living in Canada, you must have been a permanent resident and physically present in Canada for at least 1,460 days (four 365-day periods) in the six years immediately before the date of your application.

How long does it take to become a citizen in Canada?

– Processing time is the average for how long it takes from when we begin processing a complete application to when you become a Canadian citizen. … explains why your application is incomplete and what the next steps are.

Help Centre what do you need help with? What do you need help with? After I apply for citizenship, how long will it be before I write the … The time between submitting your application and writing the citizenship test can be different for … What are the requirements for becoming a Canadian citizen? I already 

– Becoming a Canadian citizen requires language, history, and physical … through the hassle of applying for citizenship or permanent residency, take a … If you don’t spend that much time within the borders, you could lose your …

Once you have submitted complete documents, it usually takes 12 months for IRCC to process your applications and grant you the Canadian …

 If you have not been in Canada long enough, it will tell you when you … The applicant must be a Canadian citizen or be applying to become a …

 Time spent in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident did not count towards the physical presence requirement for citizenship.


Immigrate to Canada and apply for immigration to Canada via the Internet for free

About becoming a Permanent Resident
Permanent Resident (PR) status provides you with the right to stay in Canada on a permanent basis, subject to some
conditions. There are many ways to become a Permanent Resident of Canada. Some different paths to become a
permanent resident include:
• Express Entry (Federal Skilled Worker Program, Canadian
Experience Class, Federal Skilled Trades Program)
• Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (see ISS’s
information sheet ‘The Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program’)
• Other Provincial/Territorial Nominee Programs,
Family sponsorship, Self-employed Persons
Program, Start-up Visa Program, Caregiver
Program, etc.
Express Entry is an intake system used to manage applications for three different permanent residence streams: Federal
Skilled Worker program (FSW), Canadian Experience Class (CEC), and Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP). If you meet
the eligibility criteria for one of the three streams, you can complete an Express Entry profile. This information sheet
explains applying for the Federal Skilled Worker program through Express Entry.
Process to apply for PR status through Express Entry
See the criteria listed below under ‘Am I eligible for the Federal Skilled Worker Program?’ for more information. You should complete an
authorized language test (i.e: IELTS-General or CELPIP-General) and an Educational Credential Assessment (ECA) for any education that
you have completed outside of Canada for which you are claiming Express Entry points OR that you are using to meet the requirements for
the FSW program.
After logging into your IRCC Online account, create an EE profile and answer questions about your personal circumstances. The questions
will assess your eligibility for the Federal Skilled Worker program as well as other immigration programs. You will be given points under
the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) based on factors including: language proficiency, age, work experience, education and
adaptability. You must submit language test results and an Educational Credential Assessment (ECA), if applicable. Before submitting an
EE profile, you may wish to start gathering the documents that you will need if issued an ITA, as some documents can take a long time to
obtain (i.e: police certificates from some countries can take 6 months or more to obtain).
Draws are conducted, on average, twice per month. IRCC has the right to limit draws to specific programs or categories of occupations. To
see the minimum scores of recent draws, please see:
You must submit your permanent residence application within 90 days of receiving your ITA, including all required supporting
documentation. You may also want to submit the results from a recent, up-front medical exam from an IRCC panel physician.
Average processing time for PR applications under Express Entry is 6 months. To see the most up-to-date processing times, please visit the
IRCC website: (Select ‘Economic Class’, ‘Skilled Workers (Federal)’, and ‘On or
after January 1, 2015’).
Am I eligible for the Federal Skilled Worker program? If you have work experience, you may be eligible for the Federal
Skilled Worker (FSW) program. If you are eligible for the FSW program, you may wish to submit an Express Entry profile.
To meet the criteria for the FSW program you must:
✓ Have 1 year of continuous, full-time (or the equivalent in part-time) paid work in one occupation at skill type 0,
A, or B in the 2011 National Occupation Classification (NOC) within the last 10 years
( ;
✓ Meet minimum language level of Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 7 in all four abilities
✓ Have a Canadian secondary or post-secondary certificate, diploma, or degree OR a foreign credential that is
deemed equivalent to a Canadian credential (;
✓ Meet minimum financial requirements (;
✓ Score a minimum of 67 points in the six selection factors (
✓ Plan to live outside of Quebec; and
✓ Not be inadmissible to Canada (
What is the National Occupation Classification (NOC) and how can I find my job skill level? The NOC is a system that
the Government of Canada uses in order to classify and categorize jobs in Canada. You are required to have work
experience in a job categorized as NOC 0, A, or B in order to qualify for FSW. To find the NOC code for your previous
employment, please see: or page 3 of ISS’s information sheet
‘Submitting an Expression of Interest for MPNP’.
Can I use work experience that I gained part-time during the school year to qualify for FSW? Under FSW, you can
count part-time work experience that you gained while studying in Canada towards the requirements of the FSW
program, provided that the work meets the FSW requirements including that it was continuous, in one occupation,
equivalent to 1 year of FT work and in NOC skill type 0, A, or B.3
How do I figure out how many points I will get under Express Entry? You can view the Comprehensive Ranking System
(CRS) for Express Entry here: You can use the CRS tool to
estimate how many points you should receive:
Can I get points for ‘arranged employment’ or ‘Canadian work experience’ under the CRS? While holding a PostGraduation Work Permit (PGWP), you CANNOT get points under CRS-D for ‘Arranged Employment’ or a ‘valid job offer’.
While holding a PGWP, you can get points under the CRS for ‘Canadian work experience’ if your work was full-time (or
the equivalent in part-time) and in NOC 0, A, or B. While studying full-time, any part-time or full-time work completed
CANNOT be counted towards ‘Canadian work experience’ for the CRS.
Can I get points under the CRS for my program of study in Canada? Yes, if you complete an undergraduate/graduate
degree or post-graduate diploma at the University of Winnipeg, you can get points under the CRS for this education. You
cannot get points for a program which is still in progress. You cannot get points for completing the English Language
Can I apply for Express Entry while studying? Yes! As long as you meet the criteria of the FSW or another stream, you
can apply to Express Entry while studying in Canada on a valid Study Permit. You would simply indicate in your Express
Entry profile that you are currently living in Canada. If invited to submit a full application, you should provide a copy of
your Study Permit and proof of your status as a student (i.e: letter of enrolment, transcript).
How long will it take to get a decision? Express Entry draws occur, on average, every two weeks. If you are not selected
in a draw, your Express Entry profile will remain active for 1 year and you may be selected in a future draw. Once
selected in a draw and issued an ITA, you have 90 days to submit all of the required documentation. Once IRCC receives
a complete application, it takes on average, 6 months for permanent residence to be issued.
How much does it cost to apply for Express Entry? There is no cost to completing an Express Entry profile. If you are
issued an ITA and submit a full application you will be required to pay a $550 application fee. If granted PR, you will have
to pay a $490 Right of Permanent Residence Fee. Additional fees are required if you are applying with family members.
These fees do not include the cost of language tests, Educational Credential Assessments, etc.
Should I apply to the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP) or through Express Entry (EE)? If you are eligible
for both programs, there are several factors to consider. The Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program is a provincial
immigration program for people who plan to stay and settle in Manitoba. Express Entry is a federal intake system for
people who want to live in any location in Canada (other than Quebec). Express Entry applications are processed more
quickly than MPNP applications. Express Entry applications require different, often more extensive documentation than
what is required for the MPNP and the online application process for Express Entry is more complex than that of the
Can I submit both a MPNP and FSW application? You can have an active Express Entry and Expression of Interest profile
at the same time. If you are invited to submit a full application to either program and change your mind, you can
withdraw your application from one of the programs and submit an application to the other program OR one application
will be administratively withdrawn automatically upon the approval of the other application.6
Do you have any application tips?
• Keep copies & take screen shots! The Express Entry system has a reputation for technical glitches. Keep a copy
of everything that you submit & take screen shots at various points during the application process, including
pictures of any error messages that you receive. Make sure to save all of your information on your computer,
not just on your Express Entry profile as the information you enter in Express Entry may be accidently erased.
• Read. Make sure that you understand all of the stream requirements and the points to which you are entitled.
Double check that you are providing all of the required documentation and that the Express Entry system has
correctly assessed your points and eligibility.
• Only provide relevant, essential information. Only put information in your Express Entry profile if it impacts your
eligibility for FSW or CRS points (i.e: do not include additional work experience information if it will not give you
any additional CRS points AND if it does not impact your eligibility for FSW). Also, you should be able to prove
any work experience or education that you entered into EE. Any education that you enter into EE which you
obtained outside of Canada should be accompanied by an ECA.
• Provide complete and detailed employment letters. The IRCC officer looking at your application will be directly
comparing the tasks and duties outlined in your employment letter to the NOC description for the job. Make
sure that your employment letters provide detailed information (i.e: letters should include date of employment,
detailed lists of duties and responsibilities, salary, benefits, signature of company representative, date, email
address and phone number of company, etc.). You may also wish to provide additional proof of employment
(i.e: such as T4 or income tax slips, pay slips, contracts, old job offer letters, etc.).
• Be truthful & update your profile. It is important that all information that you submit in your Express Entry
profile is truthful. If you are not truthful, you could face charges of misrepresentation and be banned from
submitting an immigration application for five years. Also, if your information changes, you must promptly
update your Express Entry profile to avoid any issues with misrepresentation.
• Be ready to go. Once receiving an Invitation to Apply, you have 90 days to submit all of the required
documentation for a full application. If you think that you have a good chance of being drawn quickly, start
obtaining your documents early, even before submitting an Express Entry profile. The following documents
should be provided when submitting a PR application: language test results, employment letters, e-medical
receipt, all pages of passport, copies of all temporary resident documents (i.e: Study Permits, Work Permits, etc),
ECA report & copy of diploma/transcripts, police clearance certificates, photo(s), birth certificate for each
person in application, marriage certificate/statutory declaration of common-law union, divorce certificate,
custody document, authorization from non-accompanying parents, previous refusal letters, proof of settlement
funds, letter of explanation, etc.). Additional documents may be required, depending on your personal situation.
• Get good advice. The ISS immigration advisor can provide general information about PR options. For more
complete application assistance, you may wish to hire a professional immigration consultant or lawyer with
experience in Express Entry. A professional will ensure that you have provided all of the required documentation
and information and will also assist you with navigating the complex electronic application system. You may also
wish to review the IRCC website for further information:
This document does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as a source of legal advice. It is a reference sheet designed to provide general
information on Express Entry and Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) process for applying for Permanent Residence through the FSW class and
describes existing requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the regulations made under the Act in general terms. As this class of
immigration has complex requirements, it is strongly recommended that students contact Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or a regulated
consultant or immigration lawyer to review their specific case. IRCC Regulations, policies, and procedures may change without notice. For the most current
information, please visit the IRCC Website at or contact the Call Centre at 1.888.242.2100. This document was approved by a Regulated Canadian
Immigration Consultant in good standing with the ICCRC with the intention to be used in conjunction with personalized immigration advising by students currently
registered at The University of Winnipeg. For appointments with an ISS immigration advisor, contact ISS: (204) 786-9469; – Revised January, 2018.

1 A Post-Graduation Work Permit does not qualify the holder to claim points for ‘arranged employment’ or a ‘valid job offer’ under the FSW selection factors
( Due to this, providing proof of minimum settlement funds for a FSW application is required.
2 You must have performed the actions in the lead statement for the occupation and a substantial number of the main duties, including all essential duties, as
described in the NOC. For more information about finding your NOC, see ISS’s information sheet: ‘Submitting an Expression of Interest’
3 For more information, see:
4 As the Post-Graduation Work Permit is an open work permit and does not list a specific employer, it does not qualify the holder to claim a job offer as ‘arranged
employment’ for the purpose of obtaining CRS points (
5 Self-employed work or work completed without authorization (i.e: full-time work during the school year) CANNOT be counted towards ‘Canadian work experience’
for the CRS. For more information see section 15 of the Ministerial Instruction for the Express Entry Application Management System
6 Note that processing fees may not be refunded if an application is withdrawn, depending on stage of processing


Legitimate immigration to Canada, easily steps 2020

The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center
(202) 707-6462 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • •
Points-Based Immigration
Australia • Canada • United Kingdom
March 2013
Australia ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
United Kingdom……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
The Law Library of Congress 1 1
Kelly Buchanan, Chief
Foreign, Comparative, and
International Law Division I
SUMMARY Australia operates a “hybrid” system for skilled migration, involving both employer
sponsorship options and points-based visas. In recent years, there has been a shift in focus
away from independent skilled migration, with greater emphasis being placed on demanddriven employer- and government-sponsored skilled migration.
In 2012, three new points-based visas were introduced to replace the existing visas and a
new application process was put in place. This followed the introduction of a new points
test in 2011 that recognizes a broader range of skills and attributes. People who wish to
migrate to Australia under the points-based system must now submit an online expression
of interest and must receive an invitation from the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship in order to apply for a visa. To be eligible for a points-based visa, applicants
must be younger than fifty years of age, nominate an occupation from the Skilled
Occupations List, have their skills assessed by a relevant authority, have at least competent
English, meet health and character requirements, and score at least sixty points on the
points test.
Both the employer-sponsored and points-based skilled migration programs have resulted in
high labor market participation rates of migrants, with rates of 99% and 96% respectively
after one year of permanent settlement. Migrants also received relatively high median fulltime earnings in Australia. In 2011-12, the top source countries for General Skilled
Migration visas were India, the United Kingdom, China, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia.
In addition to programs for permanent migration of skilled workers, Australia offers
various temporary visas for visitors, students, and workers. In 2012, a seasonal worker
program was introduced following a four-year pilot.
Various mechanisms are used to encourage voluntary compliance with the immigration
system, including a status resolution service, bridging visas, and an online visa verification
system. In 2011-12, 99% of temporary visa holders complied with their visa requirements.
I. General Overview of the Immigration System
Australia’s universal visa system requires all noncitizens to have a valid visa to enter and remain
in Australia. Australia’s immigration program is primarily governed by the Migration Act 1958
(Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).1
The program is administered by the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).

1 Migration Act 1958 (Cth),; Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Multiple additional subsidiary instruments and governmental
notices apply under the Migration Act, see Legislative Instruments – All – by Title – MI, COMLAW,
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 2
The permanent migration program has two main components: the Migration Program2
and the
Humanitarian Program.
Both programs are divided into streams, categories, and visa
“subclasses.” The Migration Program consists of the Skilled Stream, Family Stream,4
Special Eligibility Stream.5
Australia operates a “hybrid” selection system for skilled migrants that includes both a pointsbased system and employer sponsorship options.6
The Skilled Stream of the Migration Program
is divided into four main categories:7
points-based skilled migration (also known as General
Skilled Migration), the Permanent Employer-Sponsored Program,8
the Business Innovation and
Investment Program,9
and visas for people with “distinguished talent.”10
Section III of this
report provides information on the points-based skilled migration category.
Various temporary visas are available.11
Some of these visas provide limited rights to work,
such as those for students,12 seasonal workers, and young people on working holidays.
Information on the latter two programs is provided in Section IV of this report. The subclass 457
visa is the major temporary work visa for employer-sponsored foreign workers in skilled; Gazettal Notices, DIAC, (both last visited Feb. 28, 2013).
See generally Fact Sheet 1 – Immigration: The Background Part One, DIAC, (last reviewed May 2012).
See generally Fact Sheet 1 – Immigration: The Background Part Two, DIAC, (last reviewed May 2012).
See generally Fact Sheet 29 – Overview of the Family Stream, DIAC, (last reviewed Sept. 2012).
See generally Fact Sheet 40 – Special Eligibility Stream, DIAC, (last reviewed Apr. 27, 2011). This stream makes provision for former permanent residents
who meet certain criteria to remain in or return to Australia as permanent residents.
7 Fact Sheet 24 – Overview of Skilled Migration to Australia, DIAC, (last reviewed July 2012).
See generally Employer Sponsored Workers, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013). See also DIAC, PERMANENT EMPLOYER
(providing an overview of the current visa streams under this program) (last visited Feb. 28, 2013).
See generally Fact Sheet 27 – Business Migration, DIAC, (last reviewed July 2012).
10 Distinguished Talent Visa (Offshore) (Subclass 124): About this Visa, DIAC,
skilled/specialist-entry/124/; Distinguished Talent Visa (Onshore) (Subclass 858): About this Visa, DIAC, (both last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
11 See generally Fact Sheet 46 – Temporary Entry: An Overview, DIAC, (last reviewed Nov. 2012).
12 See Student Visa Conditions for the Primary Visa Holder, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 21, 2013).
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 3
occupations and may be valid for up to four years.13
People on this and some other temporary
visas may be able to transition to a permanent residence visa while they are in Australia.14
New Zealand citizens are able to live, work, and study in Australia indefinitely on special
“temporary” visas due to reciprocal arrangements between the two countries.15
New Zealanders
settling in Australia are included in total settler numbers but are not counted as part of
Australia’s Migration Program unless they choose to apply for permanent residence as skilled or
family migrants.16

In recent years, Australia has introduced various temporary and permanent visa initiatives
targeted at enabling employers in different regions in Australia to address labor shortages by
obtaining overseas workers to fill skilled and semiskilled positions.17
The specific eligibility criteria for the different subclasses are set out in Schedule 2 of the
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). There are also some “general public interest criteria” set out
in the Regulations that relate to health18 and character19 requirements that apply to all visas. In
addition, applicants for some visas (including all permanent visas) are required to sign an
Australian Values Statement.20

13 See generally Fact Sheet 48b – Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) Visa, DIAC,
media/fact-sheets/48b-temporary-business-visa.htm (last reviewed Nov. 2012).
14 See, e.g., Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186), DIAC (SkillSelect),
select/index/visas/subclass-186/ (last updated Dec. 12, 2012); Mei Hoong, Changes to the Permanent Employer
Sponsored Program, DIAC MIGRATION BLOG (May 7, 2012),
15 See Fact Sheet 17 – New Zealanders in Australia, DIAC,
(last reviewed Oct. 2012); New Zealand Citizens Entering Australia, DIAC,
travel-documents/new-zealand.htm (last visited Feb. 25, 2013). New Zealanders automatically receive a Special
Category visa (SCV) when they enter Australia. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 32; Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth),
sch 2, subclass 444.
16 See also DIAC, TRENDS IN MIGRATION: AUSTRALIA 2010-2011 (Annual submission to the OECD’s Continuous
Reporting System on Migration (SOPEMI)) 22,
17 See, e.g., Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, Skilled Migration Reform to Support Australia’s Growing Economy
(May 10, 2011),
18 See Fact Sheet 22 – The Health Requirement, DIAC,
(last reviewed May 2010).
19 See Fact Sheet 79 – The Character Requirement, DIAC, (last reviewed Jan. 2013); Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501; Migration Regulations 1994
(Cth), reg 1.03 & sch 4 pt 1 (Public Interest Criterion 4001).
20 See Australian Values, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 21, 2013);
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), sch 4, pt 3.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 4
II. Number of Immigrants
As of February 25, 2013, Australia’s population was estimated to be over 22.9 million people.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 27% of the estimated population on June
30, 2011, was born overseas (about 6 million people).22
The largest group of overseas-born
residents at that time was from the United Kingdom (5.3% of the population), followed by New
Zealand (2.5%), China (1.8%), India (1.5%), and Vietnam and Italy (0.9% each).23

The ABS states that “[h]istorically, more people immigrate to, than emigrate from, Australia.”24

Net overseas migration peaked at 315,700 in December 2008, but declined significantly to about
197,200 in March 2012. The DIAC has predicted a gradual rise in net overseas migration to
about 249,000 by June 2016.25
A. Migration Program
Under section 85 of the Migration Act 1958, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship can
place limits, or “caps,” on the number of visas that can be granted for a particular subclass each
In terms of the Migration Program, over the last decade there has been a shift to more
people obtaining residence in Australia under the Skilled Stream than the Family Stream. In
1996-97,27 more than 50% of migrants arrived under the Family Stream with about 47% of
places being awarded under the Skilled Stream.28
In comparison, in 2012-13, Australia’s
Migration Program is set at 190,000 places,29 comprising
 60 185 places for family migrants who are sponsored by family members already in
Australia [31.7% of the program]

45ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
22 Australia’s Population by Country of Birth, AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS,
ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/84074889D69E738CCA257A5A00120A69?opendocument (last updated Dec. 17,
2012). See also Fact Sheet 15 – Population Growth, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP (DIAC), (last reviewed June 2012).
23 Australia’s Population by Country of Birth, supra note 22.
24 Id.
26 See Fact Sheet 21 – Managing the Migration Program, DIAC, (last reviewed Sept. 2012).
27 The Australian government’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.
(Australia Parliamentary Library, updated Dec. 6, 2012),
29 This is about 5,000 more than the 2011-2012 planning level. Of the additional places, 3,400 were allocated to the
Skilled stream to “help meet demand for skilled migrants.” Fact Sheet 2 – Key Facts About Immigration, DIAC, (last reviewed June 2012).
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 5
 129 250 places for skilled migrants who gain entry essentially because of their work
or business experience, business qualifications, skills or sponsorship [68% of the
 565 places for special eligibility migrants who are former permanent residents and
have maintained close business, cultural or personal ties with Australia.30
B. Humanitarian Program
In 2011-12, the Humanitarian Program resulted in 13,759 visas being granted against a planning
figure of 13,750. This included 6,718 offshore visas and 7,041 onshore visas. Forty-four percent
of the total number of visas were granted to refugees, 5% were Special Humanitarian Program
visas, and 51% were Protection and other visas granted onshore.31
C. Source Countries
The total number of settlers arriving in Australia during the 2010-11 year was 127,460, with
people coming from more than two hundred countries. The majority came from four countries:
New Zealand (20.2%), China (11.5%), the United Kingdom (8.6%), and India (8.3%).32

In terms of permanent migration of skilled workers, the top source countries for 2011-12 were as
 General Skilled Migration: (1) India, (2) United Kingdom, (3) China, (4) Sri Lanka,
(5) Malaysia.
 Employer-sponsored Migration: (1) United Kingdom, (2) Philippines, (3) India, (4) South
Africa, (5) China.
 Total Skill Stream: (1) India, (2) United Kingdom, (3) China, (4) Philippines, (5)
South Africa.
In terms of subclass 457 (temporary skilled) visas, the top source countries for 2011-12 were: (1)
United Kingdom, (2) India, (3) Ireland, (4) Philippines, (5) United States of America.34
In the Humanitarian Program, the main groups resettled from within the three key source regions
in 2011-12 were:
 Middle East/South West Asia—Iraqi minorities from a range of countries in the
Middle East, Iranian Baha’is from Turkey, and Afghans from Iran and Pakistan

30 Fact Sheet 20 – Migration Program Planning Levels, DIAC, (last reviewed May 2012).
31 DIAC, ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 at 111,
32 Fact Sheet 2 – Key Facts About Immigration, supra note 29.
33 DIAC, CURRENT COUNTRY RANKINGS, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
34 Id.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 6
 Asia—Burmese refugees from Malaysia, Thailand and India and Bhutanese refugees
from Nepal
 Africa—refugees from Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Eritrea.35
III. The Points-Based Skilled Migration System
A. Overview of the System
The purpose of the points test mechanism is to “help select skilled migrants who offer the best in
terms of economic benefit to Australia.”36
According to the DIAC, the test “creates a selection
process that is transparent and objective, awarding points to the skills and attributes considered
to be in need in Australia.”37
The visa subclasses that have been established under the points-based skilled migration category
are available to independent (unsponsored) applicants, applicants nominated by a state or
territory government agency, and applicants sponsored by an eligible relative.38
People must be
invited to apply for these visas.39
Section 93 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides the Minister with the power to prescribe
points for a range of factors through regulations.
Points are currently awarded for the
following factors:41
 Age;
 English language ability;
 Number of years of skilled employment in the past ten years within or outside Australia;
 Level of educational qualifications;
 Qualifications obtained from Australian educational institutions;

35 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12, supra note 31, at 112.
36 DIAC, 1 JULY 2011 – POINTS TEST FOR CERTAIN SKILLED MIGRATION VISAS (June 2011), http://www.immi.
37 Id.
38 Note that graduates of Australian institutions may be eligible for temporary visas that enable them to gain work
experience or improve their English skills in Australia before applying for a permanent General Skilled Migration
visa. Skilled – Graduate (Temporary) Visa: About this Visa, DIAC,; Skilled – Recognised Graduate (Temporary) Visa (Subclass 476), DIAC,
skilled/general-skilled-migration/476/ (both last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
39 See infra, Section III(C). The various factors in the points test must be demonstrated at the time that a person is
invited to apply for a visa.
40 See Fact Sheet 21 – Managing the Migration Program, supra note 26.
41 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), regs 2.26AC-2.27D & sch 6D. The full points test table is attached as an
appendix to this report.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 7
 Other factors, such as community language qualifications, study in regional Australia or a
low-population-growth metropolitan area, partner skill qualifications, and Professional Year
in Australia; and
 Nomination by a state or territory government or sponsorship by an eligible family member
(relevant visas only).
Under the current system for points-based visas, an applicant must nominate a skilled occupation
from the Australian government’s Skilled Occupation List (SOL) and must have their skills
assessed as suitable for that occupation by a recognized authority.42
However, the occupation
itself does not form part of the points test.
Section 96 of the Migration Act allows the Minister to set the “pass mark” for points-tested
The current pass mark for the skilled migration points-based visas is sixty points.44
“Pool marks” can also be set so that applicants with a score that is lower than the pass mark can
be placed in a pool for a specified period of time. However, the current pool mark for all visas is
the same as the pass mark, meaning that no applications are being placed in the pool at this
Apart from passing the points test and nominating a skilled occupation from the SOL, there are
basic eligibility requirements that must be met in order to obtain one of the visas: applicants must
be under fifty years of age, have at least competent English, and meet the health and character

Applicants for skilled migration visas can include family members in their application. Such
family members must meet specified secondary applicant criteria. They must also demonstrate
the family relationship with the applicant and satisfy health, character, Australian values, and any
English language requirements.47

42 Skills Assessment and Assessing Authorities, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
43 See Fact Sheet 21 – Managing the Migration Program, supra note 26.
44 Migration Act 1958 – Specification under subsections 96(1) and 96(2) – Pass Marks and Pool Marks in relation to
applications for General Skilled Migrations Visas (Classes VE, VC, VF, VB, SI, SN and SP) – June 2012 (Cth), pt 3,
45 Id. See also What is the Points Test, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/points-tested-visas.pdf. Competent English is defined as “an International
English Language Test System (IELTS) score of at least six in each of the four components of the IELTS test; or at
least B in the Occupational English Test (OET); or being a citizen and passport holder of the UK, Canada, New
Zealand, Ireland or the USA.” Id. at 3.
47 Id. at 3.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 8
B. Changes to Skilled Migration 2008-2011
In 2008-09, in the wake of the global financial crisis, the Australian government conducted a
review of permanent skilled migration.48
The review identified “the need for a shift in focus
away from ‘supply driven’ independent skilled migration towards ‘demand-driven’ outcomes, in
the form of employer and government-sponsored skilled migration.”49
As a result, changes were
made to the system to apply priority processing arrangements for sponsored migrants rather than
those opting for independent points-based skilled migration.50
Further changes were made in 2010 that were intended to “target the program and ensure that it
is driven by the demands of Australian industry rather than the supply of independent skilled
This included the phasing out of existing skills lists and their replacement with the
Skilled Occupation List referred to above, which is developed by an independent body and
updated annually to reflect occupations in demand.52
These changes were followed by a review of the points test in 2010,53 with the resulting
recommendations implemented from July 1, 2011.54
The new test sought to address concerns
that the previous test had “not always led to outcomes consistent with the objectives of the
skilled migration program.”55
For example, its emphasis on Australian qualifications and
experience had meant that “an overseas student with a short term vocational qualification and
one year’s work experience in Australia [was put] ahead of a Harvard educated environmental
engineer with three years’ relevant work experience.”56

48 See Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, Migration Program Gives Priority to Those with Skills Most Needed (Dec.
17, 2008),
49 PHILLIPS & SPINKS, supra note 28, at 4. See also Mark Cully, Skilled Migration Selection Policies: Recent
Australian Reforms (2012),
50 Id. See also Fact Sheet 24a – Priority Processing for Skilled Migration Visas,
media/fact-sheets/24apriority_skilled.htm (last reviewed July 2012).
51 PHILLIPS & SPINKS, supra note 28, at 4.
52 Id. at 5. See generally Do You Have a Skilled Occupation?, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
53 Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, General Skilled Migration Points Test Review (Feb. 17, 2010),; DIAC, GENERAL SKILLED MIGRATION
visited Feb. 27, 2013).
54 See Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, New Migration Points Test to Better Address Australia’s Skills Needs (Nov.
55 Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, New Migration Points Test to Better Address Australia’s Skills Needs, supra
note 54.
56 Id.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 9
According to the DIAC, the new test “does not give undue weight to any one factor and
recognises a broader range of skills and attributes.”57
The changes to the points test focused on
“better English language skills, more extensive skilled work experience, higher level
qualifications obtained in Australia and overseas and different age ranges.”
It was as part of
these changes that it was determined that points would no longer be awarded on the basis of an
applicant’s occupation, although all applicants would still be required to nominate an occupation
on the Skilled Occupation List.59
Another significant change was an increase in the age limit for
skilled migration from forty-five to fifty years.60
C. Skilled Migration Reforms 2012
In 2011, the Australian government announced significant reforms to the Skilled Migration
Stream and other visa programs.61
The changes included a new, two-stage application process
for points-based visas and some business and investment visas. The process involves an
electronic Skilled Migration Selection Model, known as “SkillSelect,”62 through which persons
submit Expressions of Interest (EOI) for specific skilled migration visas. A person can only
apply for one of the visas if he or she is subsequently invited to do so by the DIAC.63
For independent skilled migrants, selection is based on the EOI, from which a points test score
and occupation rankings are derived, with the highest ranked in each selection round invited to
apply. For state- and territory-nominated migrants, state and territory governments “can select
anyone from the expression of interest pool, so long as they meet the points test pass mark and
other criteria as specified in their State Migration Plans.”64
Employers can also gain access to
the database and can “select migrants who have expressed an interest in being sponsored by an
employer on a permanent or temporary basis.”65

58 DIAC, Frequently Asked Questions – New Points Test, supra note 54, at 1.
59 Id.
60 Annual Report 2011-12, supra note 31, at 43.
61 See Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, Budget 2011-12: Skilled Migration Reform to Support Australia’s Growing
Economy (May 10, 2011),; PHILLIPS & SPINKS,
supra note 28, at 5-7.
62 SkillSelect, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
63 See generally, New Skilled Visa and Points Test Arrangements, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013); Robert, Changes to Points-tested Skilled Migration Visas,
DIAC MIGRATION BLOG (Apr. 24, 2012),
64 Trends in Migration: Australia 2010-2011, supra note 16, at 9-10.
65 Id. at 10.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 10
Under the reforms, which took effect on July 1, 2012, the six existing points-based visa
subclasses were phased out66 and replaced with three new points-based visas that are now
available through the SkillSelect process:67
 Skilled Independent (subclass 189) visa, which allows skilled workers who are not sponsored
by an employer, state or territory, or family member, to live and work permanently anywhere
in Australia.68
 Skilled – Nominated (subclass 190) visa, which allows skilled workers who are nominated by
a state or territory to live and work permanently in Australia. Holders of this visa must stay
in the state or territory that nominated them for at least two years.69
 Skilled – Nominated or Sponsored (Provisional) (subclass 489) visa, which allows skilled
workers who are nominated by a state or territory, or sponsored by an eligible relative living
in a designated area of Australia, to live and work in a specified regional area for up to four
Holders of this visa can apply for permanent residence through the Skilled Regional
(Residence) visa (subclass 887) after certain conditions have been met.71
The consolidation of the visa subclasses included the removal of distinctions relating to a
person’s location for the above visas, meaning that they can be inside or outside Australia at the
time they apply for a visa and when the visa is decided.72
As indicated above, the pass mark for the three visas was set at sixty points. This is lower than
the 65-point pass mark that previously applied to the General Skilled Migration subclasses
following the 2010 review of the points test. According to the DIAC, the lower pass mark for
the new visas was intended to “encourage a broader range of people with the skills and attributes
needed in Australia to register their interest in migration.”73
The DIAC has stated that the new points test and SkillSelect “are designed to provide
government with 21st century tools to choose skilled migrants who have the most to offer

66 The visa subclasses for which applications are now no longer being accepted are 175, 176, 475, 487, 885, and
67 See DIAC, POINTS BASED SKILLED MIGRATION (SUBCLASSES 189, 190 AND 489) VISA (Booklet 6, Nov. 2012), (providing detailed information on these visas).
68 SkillSelect: Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) Visa, DIAC,
visas/subclass-189/ (last updated Aug. 7, 2012).
69 SkillSelect: Skilled – Nominated (Subclass 190) Visa), DIAC,
index/visas/subclass-190/ (last updated Aug. 7, 2012).
70 SkillSelect: Skilled – Nominated or Sponsored (Provisional) (Subclass 489) Visa, DIAC,
skills/skillselect/index/visas/subclass-489/ (last updated Aug. 7, 2012).
71 Id.; Skilled – Regional (Residence) Visa (Subclass 887): About this Visa, DIAC,
general-skilled-migration/887/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
DIAC, Changes to Points Tested Skilled Migration Visas, supra note 46, at 1.
73 Press Release, DIAC, Change to the Skilled Migration Pass Mark (June 15, 2012), http://www.newsroom.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 11
Australia as well as promote effective administration of the Migration Program.”74
The new
system means that “invitations to apply can be issued in line with the number of visa places
available” and legal entitlements to a visa decision are limited to the second stage of the process,
thus avoiding a “pipeline of queued applicants” and allowing for better control over the level of
net overseas migration.75
D. Labor Market Outcomes of “Points System” Migrants
In 2009, DIAC commenced a program called the “Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants”
(CSAM), which aims to “provide timely information on the labour market outcomes of recent
A summary of the key findings of the first round of CSAM surveys, covering 2009-
2011, was published in February 2013.77
Findings from the surveys included the following:
 Overall, skilled migrants had a “particularly high” labor force participation rate of 96%,
substantially higher than the national rate of 67% and “much higher than the rate for our
Australia-born and overseas-born populations—of 69 per cent and 62 per cent respectively.”78
 After six months of permanent residence, “[a]t $74 600 per year, Offshore Independent
migrants had the highest median full-time earnings of any group—well above the $44 400 per
annum of Onshore migrants, and higher even then the $71 300 per annum for migrants with
employer sponsorship.”79
The summary report suggests two key reasons for this situation:
“Firstly, unlike Employer Sponsored migrants, they have had to meet the requirements of a strict
points test in order to be granted their visa. Secondly, because of the way the test is structured,
most will also have acquired considerable work experience, meaning that provided they are able
to find work they are likely to be further advanced in terms of career and pay.”80
 After a year of permanent residence, “Offshore Independent migrants showed strong
improvements in labour outcomes, with significant falls in unemployment (down 7 percentage
points) and significant increases in full-time work (up 9 percentage points).” This group also had
“a relatively large increase in skilled employment, with the proportion employed in a skilled job
increasing by 8 percentage points.”81
 After a year of permanent residence, “Employer Sponsored migrants had almost no
unemployment (only 0.5 per cent), the highest rate of workforce participation of all Skilled

74 Trends in Migration: Australia 2010-2011, supra note 16, at 10.
75 Id.
publications/research/_pdf/csam-info.pdf (last visited Feb. 27, 2013). See generally, Continuous Survey of
Australia’s Migrants, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 27, 2013).
78 Id. at 3.
79 Id. at 12.
80 Id.
81 Id. at 14.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 12
migrant categories (99 per cent) and the second highest median full-time earnings of $75 000.
They also had the greatest likelihood of being in skilled work (91 per cent).”82
The summary
report states that “[i]n terms of immediate economic return from skilled migration, the CSAM
validates the government’s policies that promote skilled migration and in particular Employer
Sponsored migration.”83
 The results for Offshore Independent skilled migrants after a year included 83% in skilled
employment, 85% working full-time, 96% participation rate, and median full-time earnings of
For Employer Sponsored migrants, the figures were 91% in skilled employment,
93% working full-time, 99% participation rate, and median full-time earnings of AU$75,000.85
The DIAC has worked with an independent economic consultancy to develop the Migrants’
Fiscal Impact Model, which “provides a detailed profile of the effect of new migrants on the
Australian Government Budget, taking into account their impact on revenues and expenditure.”86

This model showed that the cumulative fiscal benefit of all Migration and Humanitarian Program
(i.e. permanent) visas granted in 2010-11 over the first ten years of settlement in Australia is over
AU$10.2 billion, with skilled migrants making the greatest fiscal contribution.87
The net fiscal
impact on the Budget from different skilled visa categories that existed in that year was
estimated as follows:88
 Skilled Independent: AU$384.2 million after ten years of permanent settlement; AU$439.5
million after twenty years
 State/Territory Sponsored: AU$104.7 million after ten years; AU$138.1 million after twenty
 Employer Sponsored: AU$493 million after ten years; AU$530.8 million after twenty years
IV. Low-Skilled Migrants
Low-skilled temporary workers may enter and work in Australia under two program areas: the
Seasonal Worker Program and the working holiday programs. Semi-skilled workers may also

82 Id. at 4.
83 Id. at 12.
84 Id. at 13. See also DIAC, Table 1: Employment Outcomes for Recent Migrants, Compared with Australian
Population, Additional Results from the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants,
media/publications/research/_pdf/csam-additional-results.pdf (last visited Feb. 27, 2013) (providing a breakdown of
figures by visa types after six months); and TRENDS IN MIGRATION: AUSTRALIA 2010-2011, supra note 16, at 98
(setting forth 2010 results).
85 The Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants: Cohorts 1 to 5 Report 2009-11, supra note 77, at 13.
86 TRENDS IN MIGRATION: AUSTRALIA 2010-2011, supra note 16, at 108. The Model considers fiscal impacts over a
twenty-year period, examines the first generation of migrants, and is not a “life cycle” model.
87 Id. at 109.
88 Id. at 110.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 13
obtain temporary subclass 457 visas under the Labour Agreement program89 or two related
programs: Enterprise Migration Agreements90 and Regional Migration Agreements.91
programs are designed to address labor shortages in the context of large resource projects and in
remote areas of the country that cannot be resolved via normal sponsorship.
Apart from these programs, low-skilled positions may in some cases be filled by New Zealand
citizens who can live and work indefinitely in Australia without meeting any of the skilled
migrant requirements.
A. Seasonal Worker Program
Between September 2008 and June 2012, Australia piloted a guest worker program that enabled
people from certain Pacific Island countries to come to Australia for seasonal horticultural
Following the pilot, the Seasonal Worker Program (SWP) came into effect in July

The SWP involves agreements with several countries94 where people aged twenty-one to fortyfive can apply for special visas95 to work for approved employers for set periods. The new
program is scheduled to run until 2016 and is administered by the Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). It applies to the following industries:
horticulture (all locations), tourism (accommodation; limited locations), sugarcane (limited
locations), cotton (limited locations), aquaculture (limited locations).96

Participants in the program can work for a specified approved employer for between fourteen
weeks and six months, cannot bring family members, and are restricted from applying for further

89 Labour Agreements, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
90 Enterprise Migration Agreements, DIAC,
(last visited Feb. 25, 2013); Fact Sheet 48a – Enterprise Migration Agreements, DIAC,
au/media/fact-sheets/48a-enterprise.htm (last reviewed June 2012).
91 Regional Migration Agreements, DIAC, (last
visited Feb. 25, 2013); Fact Sheet 48c – Regional Migration Agreement, DIAC,
fact-sheets/48c-rma.htm (last reviewed Sept. 2012).
92 See Press Release, Chris Bowen MP, Visa for Pacific Island Seasonal Worker Scheme (Sept. 23, 2008),; Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme,
93 See Seasonal Worker Program, DIAC,; Seasonal Worker
Program, DEEWR, (both last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
94 The program is currently only available for citizens of East Timor, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu who have been sponsored by an employer.
95 Seasonal Worker Program – Eligibility, DIAC,
(last visited Feb. 11, 2013); Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), sch 2, subclass 416.
96 Seasonal Worker Program: How This Program Works, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 14
visas while in Australia. Seasonal workers can return to Australia to work in future years if they
comply with visa conditions.97
B. Working Holiday Programs
Australia also operates two working holiday programs for young people (aged eighteen to thirty
years) of certain countries who are able to engage in any type of work for limited periods during
their one-year visit to Australia: “Working Holiday” visas (subclass 417) and “Work and
Holiday” visas (subclass 462).98
According to the DIAC, many working holiday program
participants are employed in the hospitality and seasonal horticultural industries.99
V. Illegal Immigration
A. Compliance Mechanisms
Any noncitizen in Australia without a valid visa is considered an “unlawful non-citizen.”
100 It is
possible to become an unlawful noncitizen by arriving without a valid visa, by overstaying a
visa, or as a result of a visa being cancelled due to noncompliance with a visa condition.101 If
there is no legal entitlement for a person to remain in Australia, they are expected to depart.102

Unlawful noncitizens may be placed in immigration detention and removed from the country.103
The DIAC, Centrelink (the agency that disburses social security payments), and the Australian
Taxation Office share information in order to locate noncitizens who are illegally employed or
who claim welfare payments to which they are not entitled.104
The DIAC also works with the
Australian Federal Police and state police authorities to locate illegal workers, and has a range of
initiatives aimed at addressing noncompliance in the agriculture sector.105

97 Seasonal Worker Program – About This Program, DIAC,; How This Program Works, DIAC, (both last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
98 See Work and Holiday Visa (Subclass 462), DIAC,;
Working Holiday Visa (Subclass 417), DIAC, (both last
visited Feb. 25, 2013).
99 Trends in Migration: Australia 2010-2011, supra note 16, at 11.
100 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 14.
101 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12, supra note 31, at 163.
102 Expired Visas, DIAC,
expired.htm (last visited Feb. 27, 2013); see generally Compliance, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
103 Fact Sheet 82 – Immigration Detention, DIAC, (last
reviewed May 2012).
104 Fact Sheet 86 – Overstayers and Other Unlawful Non-citizens, DIAC, (last revised Mar. 2012).
105 Fact Sheet 87 – Initiatives to Combat Illegal Work in Australia, DIAC, (last reviewed Sept. 2010).
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 15
The Australian government instituted a range of reforms in 2007-08 that sought to encourage
noncomplying visa holders to voluntarily approach the DIAC.106
People who have overstayed their visa can contact the DIAC’s Community Status Resolution
Service in order to seek to resolve their status.107
The CSRS can grant bridging visas, which
allow people to remain in the country (or to leave and return) after their substantive visa expires
and while their application for a new substantive visa is being processed.108
The DIAC operates a system called “Visa Entitlement Verification Online,” which employers
can use to check a person’s work rights.109
Individual visa holders can also check their visa
status online using the system.110
Organizations and individuals must register and be approved
to access this system. The DIAC also runs an “immigration dob-in service,” which enables
members of the public to provide information on persons who they think are in the country
Employers face sanctions under the Migration Act 1958 for recruiting illegal workers.112

Proposed amendments to the law introduced in the federal Parliament in 2012 include new, nofault civil penalty provisions and would allow the Department to issue infringement notices and

106 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12, supra note 31, at 179.
107 Community Status Resolution Service, DIAC,
compliance/community-status-resolution/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
108 Bridging Visas, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013); Migration Act 1958
(Cth), s 37 & pt 2, div 3, subdiv AF; Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) pt 2, div 2.5 & sch 2, subclasses 010, 020,
030; see also sch 3 (additional criteria applicable to unlawful noncitizens and certain bridging visa holders).
109 Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO), DIAC, (last visited Feb.
11, 2013).
110 Id.; see also About Your Visa, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25,
111 Immigration Dob-In Service, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
112 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), pt 2, div 12, subdiv C. See About the Employer Sanction Legislation, DIAC; see also 2010
Howells Review of Employer Sanctions, DIAC, (last visited Feb. 11, 2013).
113 See Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012, PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA, See also Press
Release, Chris Bowen MP, New Legal Sanctions Against Noncompliant Employers (Sept. 18, 2012),
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 16
B. Compliance Numbers
According to the DIAC, overall compliance with Australia’s immigration system is high, with
more than 99% of the more than 4.8 million temporary visa holders complying with their visa
requirements in 2011-12.

As of June 30, 2011, Australia’s “overstayer” population was estimated at 58,400.115
This was
an 8.3% increase from June 30, 2010, and “largely reflects increases in temporary migration
from previous years.”116
Most of these people “only overstay their visa for a short period and
then depart voluntarily.”117

In 2011-12, the DIAC
 received about 18,900 “dob-ins” or pieces of fraud-related information, compared to 15,600
in 2010-11;
 located 15,477 unlawful noncitizens, an increase compared to 13,831 in 2010-11 (About 82%
of the overall number were voluntary, with 18% of people located through field operations or
referred by the police. Many people were granted bridging visas in order to make their own
arrangements to depart Australia, with a small number detained for removal);119

 located 1,928 people who were working illegally, compared to 1,788 in 2010-11;120
 “assisted or managed” the departure of 10,785 unlawful noncitizens, including voluntary
departures as well as the removal of people from immigration detention;121
 resolved the immigration status of 12,588 unlawful noncitizens, an increase of 13% from
11,137 in 2010-11;122 and
 took 12,967 people into immigration detention, including 8,371 “irregular maritime arrivals”
(IMAs), 2,014 unauthorized air arrivals, 2,455 people who had breached their visa
conditions, 68 foreign fishers, and 59 others.123

114 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12, supra note 31, at 163.
publications/statistics/popflows2010-11/pop-flows-chapter3.pdf; TRENDS IN MIGRATION: AUSTRALIA 2010-2011,
supra note 16, at 178.
116 Population Flows: Immigration Aspects 2010-11 Edition, supra note 115, at 71.
117 Id.
118 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12, supra note 31, at 178.
119 Id. at 179.
120 Id. at 174.
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Id. at 197.
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 17
Appendix: Current Points Test for Subclass 189, 190, and 489 Visas
Factor Description Points
at time of invitation
18–24 years (inclusive)
25–32 years (inclusive)
33–39 years (inclusive)
40–44 years (inclusive)
45–49 years (inclusive)
English language ability
at time of invitation
Competent English – IELTS 6 / OET B
Proficient English – IELTS 7 / OET B
Superior English – IELTS 8 / OET A
Skilled employment
at time of invitation
Only 20 points can be
awarded for any combination
of overseas and Australian
skilled employment
Overseas employment in
nominated skilled occupation
or a closely related skilled
Australian employment in
nominated skilled occupation
or a closely related skilled
Skilled employment outside Australia
At least three but less than five years (of past 10 years)
At least five but less than eight years (of past 10 years)
At least eight and up to 10 years (of past 10 years)
Skilled employment in Australia
At least one but less than three years (of past 10 years)
At least three but less than five years (of past 10 years)
At least five but less than eight years (of past 10 years)
At least eight and up to 10 years (of past 10 years)
Educational qualifications
at time of invitation
Doctorate from an Australian educational institution or
other Doctorate of a recognised standard
At least a Bachelor degree, including a Bachelor
degree with Honours or Masters, from an Australian
educational institution or other degree of a recognised
Diploma or trade qualification completed in Australia,
or qualification or award of recognised standard
Australian study
at time of invitation
One or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications
awarded by an Australian educational institution and
meet the Australian Study Requirement
Points-Based Immigration Systems: Australia
The Law Library of Congress 18
Other factors
at time of invitation
Credentialled community language qualifications
Study in regional Australia or a low population growth
metropolitan area (excluding distance education)
Partner skill qualifications
Professional Year in Australia for at least 12 months in
the four years before the day you were invited
at time of invitation
Nomination by state or territory government (visa
subclass 190 only)
Nomination by state or territory government or
sponsorship by an eligible family member, to reside
and work in a specified/designated area (visa subclass
489 only)
Source: Contents copied from Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) Visa, DIAC (SkillSelect),
au/skills/skillselect/index/visas/subclass-189/ (click on “Points”).
The Law Library of Congress 19 19
Tariq Ahmad
Legal Research Analyst
SUMMARY Immigration to Canada is predominantly regulated by the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act and its regulations, which categorize immigrants as economic class
immigrants, family class immigrants , and refugees or others needing special protection.
Among the programs within the economic class immigration category is the Federal
Skilled Workers Program, which utilizes selection criteria based on a points system.
Applicants must obtain at least sixty-seven points out of a total of one hundred possible
points on the selection grid. Areas that are evaluated include education, languages,
experience, age, employment arrangements, and adaptability.
Immigration is administered by the Canada Border Services Agency and Citizenship and
Immigration Canada. Since 2008 Canada has been tightening its immigration policies and
laws and focusing predominantly on economic class immigration and short-term labor
market needs. Canada welcomes more than 250,000 permanent residents a year, the
majority of whom are economic class immigrants.
I. Immigration Overview
Immigration to Canada is predominantly regulated by the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, 2001 (IRPA).
Canada had been known to have a fairly broad and generous immigration
policy, but since 2006, the government has pursued reforms to “focus Canada’s immigration
system on fuelling economic prosperity” and to place “a high priority on finding people who
have the skills and experience required to meet Canada’s economic needs.”2
Since 2008, Canada
has been tightening its immigration policies and focusing on economic class immigrants (i.e.,
immigrants who have the skills and abilities to contribute to Canada’s economy) and short-term
labor market needs.3
According to 2012 Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) figures,
economic immigrants receive about 60% of permanent resident visas, the majority of which are
awarded under the Federal Skills Workers Program and the Provincial Nominee Program.

Canada welcomes about 250,000 permanent residents from all categories each year.5

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27,
2 Notice, CIC, Transforming the Immigration System (May 25, 2012),
iv (Oct. 2012),
4 Canada – Permanent Residents by Category, 2008–2012, CIC, (last modified Feb. 27, 2012).
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 20
Immigration to Canada is administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada
Border Services Agency, which is responsible for border enforcement, immigration enforcement,
and customs services.
A. Categories of Immigrants

  1. Permanent Residence
    Canada accepts several categories of immigrants for permanent residence. In addition to
    economic class immigrants (skilled or business immigrants, including provincial nominees), it
    admits specified family members and adopted children under the family class category, refugees,
    and others not falling into these specific categories who qualify for entry on humanitarian or
    compassionate grounds or for public policy reasons.
    a. Economic Class
    Canada admits three types of business immigrants as part of its Business Immigration Program:
    investors, entrepreneurs, and self-employed persons.
    However, CIC has temporarily stopped
    accepting new applications for its investors and entrepreneurs program. Business immigrants are
    not assessed on the points system. Canada’s provinces have their own Nomination Programs for
    business immigration programs.
    Apart from the Federal Skilled Workers Program, which is based on a points system (see below
    for more details), Canada also grants permanent residency to skilled workers under its Federal
    Skilled Trades Program and the Canadian Experience Class (CEC). The Federal Skilled Trades
    Program is for persons “who want to become permanent residents based on being qualified in a
    skilled trade.”7
    This relatively new program started on January 2, 2013, to deal with labor
    shortages of skilled traders in some regions of the country.8
    Under the CEC program any skilled
    workers who have twelve months of skilled work experience in Canada in the three years before
    they apply and the requisite language skills can transition from temporary to permanent
    residence (additional requirements apply).9
    The Canadian government has signed agreements with a number of Canada’s provinces that
    allow the provinces to sponsor immigrants10 under their respective Provincial Nominee Program

Investors, Entrepreneurs and Self-Employed Persons, CIC,
index.asp (last updated Dec. 1, 2010).
7 Determine Your Eligibility—Skilled Trades, CIC,
(last updated Feb. 6, 2013).
8 News Release—New Federal Skilled Trades Program Accepts Applications Starting Today, CIC, (last updated Jan. 2, 2013).
9 Determine Your Eligibility—Canadian Experience Class, CIC, (last updated Jan. 25, 2013).
10 Provincial Nominees, CIC, updated Oct.
22, 2012).
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 21
(PNP) “who will meet specific local labour market needs.”
They receive priority processing
time from CIC. The criteria for admitting immigrants vary by province and territory. According
to the CIC, “In the last ten years, the PNP has become the second largest source of economic
immigration to Canada. In 2011, more than 38,000 provincial nominees (including their spouses
and dependants) were admitted to Canada, an almost six fold increase since 2004.”12
All the provinces and territories except Quebec and Nunavut have signed nominee agreements
with the federal government. Quebec has a separate arrangement under the Canada-Quebec
Accord. The Province of Quebec administers its own immigration program, which “establishes
its own immigration requirements and selects immigrants who will adapt to living in Quebec.”

Quebec uses a points system that is similar to the federal government’s points system to assess
its applicants, but it awards a higher number of points for fluency in the French language.
Applications accepted by Quebec are submitted to the federal government for medical
examinations and background checks.
b. Family Class
Family class immigrants are not assessed on a points system, but preference is given to certain
applicants based upon their relationship to their sponsor. According to CIC, “If you are a
Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, you can sponsor your spouse, conjugal or
common-law partner, dependent child (including adopted child) or other eligible relative to
become a permanent resident.”14
It further states that “[t]here are two different processes for
sponsoring your family under the FC. One process is used for sponsoring your spouse, conjugal
or common-law partner and/or dependent children. Another process is used to sponsor other
eligible relatives.”15
c. Refugees
In the last few years Canadian refugee policy has been generally seen as relatively generous, to
such an extent that many critics contend it invites fraud and abuse. However, in the past year, in
an effort to thwart “bogus” refugee claims, Canada’s Parliament passed Bill C-31, also known as
Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act.

11 Fact Sheet—Provincial Nominee Program, CIC,
employers/provincial-nominee-program.asp (last updated Mar. 28, 2012).
12 Id.
13 Quebec-Selected Skilled Workers, CIC, (last updated
Nov. 9, 2009).
14 Family Sponsorship, CIC, (last updated Oct. 26, 2012).
15 Id.
16 Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c. 17,
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 22

  1. Temporary or Guest Workers (Low-Skilled) and Permanent Residency
    Temporary workers are issued work visas for prescribed periods of time. The federal
    government of Canada administers the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,17 which authorizes
    eligible foreign workers to work in Canada for an approved period of time if “employers can
    demonstrate that they are unable to find suitable Canadians/permanent residents to fill the jobs
    and that the entry of these workers will not have a negative impact on the Canadian labour
    According to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) website, “[e]mployers
    from all types of businesses can recruit foreign workers with a wide range of skills to meet
    temporary labour shortages.”19
    Programs for the hiring of foreign low-skilled workers include:
     The Low Skilled Worker Pilot (C & D) project, instituted in 2002, which allows employers
    to hire temporary foreign workers (TFWs) with “lower levels of formal training.”20
    The pilot
    project also has an agricultural stream.21
     The Live-in Caregiver Program, which “allows families to hire a foreign live-in caregiver,
    often called a nanny, when Canadian citizens and permanent residents are not available.”22

 The Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, which “matches workers from Mexico and the
Caribbean countries with Canadian farmers who need temporary support during planting and
harvesting seasons, when qualified Canadians or permanent residents are not available.”23

The provinces and territories also have their own Provincial Nominee Programs that may be
available to lower-skilled workers.
Most low-skilled workers are not eligible to become permanent residents in Canada. However,
workers under the Live-in Caregivers Program can apply to become permanent residents as long

17 Temporary Foreign Worker Program, HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRSDC), (last updated Feb. 4, 2013).
18 How to Hire a Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW)—A Guidebook for Employers, CIC,
english/resources/publications/tfw-guide.asp (last updated Jan. 18, 2013).
19 Id.
20 Foreign Workers, HRSDC,
(last updated Aug. 26, 2011).
21 Agricultural Stream, HRSDC,
description.shtml (last modified Nov. 21, 2012).
22 Live-in Caregiver Program: Program Description, HRSDC,
foreign_workers/caregiver/description.shtml (last updated July 25, 2012); see also Determine Your Eligibility—
Hiring a Live-in Caregiver, CIC, (last updated Oct.
19, 2012).
23 Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, HRSDC,
foreign_workers/ei_tfw/sawp_tfw.shtml (last updated June 10, 2009). For additional, more detailed information, see
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program: Requirements, HRSDC,
foreign_workers/sawp/requirements.shtml (last updated Feb. 15, 2013).
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 23
as they meet certain requirements.24
Low-skilled workers may also be eligible to gain permanent
residency through Provincial Nominee Programs.25
Three departments jointly administer the temporary labor migration programs: CIC, Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada/Service Canada, and the Canada Border
Services Agency.26
II. Number of Immigrants and Country of Origin
According to Statistics Canada, as of July 2012, the Canadian population was estimated
to be 34,880,500.27
According to CIC’s statistics, approximately 257,515 persons were admitted
to Canada for permanent residence in 2012.28
Of those, approximately 160,617 were admitted as
economic class immigrants and their dependents, 64,901 as family class immigrants, 23,056 as
refugees, and 8,936 in other immigrant categories.29
According to a CIC press release, “[f]or the
seventh consecutive year, Canada continued the highest sustained level of immigration in
Canadian history, according to preliminary 2012 data . . . .”30
CIC’s annual report to Parliament on immigration in 2012 compared 2011 immigration figures
with those of the previous year and found that,
[w]hile 2011 had lower overall admissions than that of 2010, which reached 280,691
admissions, it is important to note that a combination of unique factors created a high
watermark year for admissions in 2010. In the context of the last five years, the overall
2011 admissions were closer to the average of 250,000 admissions per year. The
proportions among the economic, family and protected persons categories [are]
comparable to previous years, with a slightly higher proportion in the economic category.
In 2011, 62.8 percent of admissions were economic immigrants (along with their
spouse/partner and dependants), 22.7 percent were in the family reunification category,
and 14.5 percent were protected persons and other immigrants.31

24 Become a Permanent Resident—Live-in Caregivers, CIC,
permanent_resident.asp (last modified Oct. 19, 2012).
25 Can Lower-Skilled Workers Apply for Permanent ResidenceUnder the Canadian Experience Class?, CIC, (last modified Nov. 7, 2012).
26 How to Hire a Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW): A Guidebook for Employers, supra note 18.
27 Canada’s Population Estimates: Age and Sex, July 1, 2012, STATISTICS CANADA, (last modified Sept. 27, 2012).
28 Canada – Permanent Residents by Category, 2008–2012, supra note 4.
29 Id.
30 News Release — Canada Continued to Welcome Highest Sustained Level of Immigration in Canadian History in
2012, CIC (Feb. 27, 2013),
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 24
The top ten source countries for immigrants to Canada in 2011 were the Philippines (34,991),
China (28,696), India (24,965), the United States (8,829), Iran (6,840), the United Kingdom
(6,550), Haiti (6,208), Pakistan (6,073), France (5,867), and the United Arab Emirates (5,223).32
In 2012, China (32,990), the Philippines (32,704), and India (28,889) were the highest source
countries of immigration.33
III. Points System Under the Federal Skilled Workers Program
According to CIC, “[s]killed workers are people who are selected as permanent residents based
on their ability to become economically established in Canada.”34
Canada’s process for selecting
skilled workers is fairly complex.
Prior to 2002, applicants were assessed on a points system that generally required applicants to
have a job offer for a position that no Canadian citizen was willing and able to fill. In enacting
the IRPA, Parliament adopted a slightly different philosophy. The law seeks to identify the types
of persons who are most likely to integrate into the Canadian workforce based upon their
background. This change of philosophy is based upon findings that persons with certain
education and work backgrounds generally become well integrated into Canadian society
regardless of whether or not they have a specific position waiting for them.
A. Basic Eligibility and Work Experience Requirements
For an application to be eligible for processing, the applicant must either have an offer of fulltime permanent employment from a Canadian employer or “be an international student enrolled
in a PhD program in Canada (or have graduated from a Canadian PhD program within the past
12 months) and meet certain criteria”35
Alternatively, the applicant must have one year
continuous full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work experience, of a “skill
type 0 (managerial occupations) or skill level A (professional occupations) or B (technical
occupations and skilled trades)” under the Canadian National Occupational Classification
However, pursuant to the Immigration Minister’s instructions, the list of qualifying

32 Facts and Figures 2011—Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents: Permanent Residents by
Source Country, CIC, (last modified
Oct. 16, 2012).
33 News Release — Canada Welcomes Record Number of Immigrants, Visitors and Students from China in 2012,
CIC (Mar. 4, 2013),; News Release
— Canada Welcomes Record Number of Immigrants, Visitors and Students from the Philippines in 2012, CIC (Mar.
4, 2013),; News Release — Canada
Welcomes Record Number of Immigrants, Visitors and Students from India in 2012, CIC (Mar. 4, 2013),
34 Determine Your Eligibility—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
skilled/apply-who.asp (last modified Nov. 7, 2012).
35 Id.
36 Id.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 25
skilled occupations has been narrowed down to twenty-nine specific, highdemand occupations.37
If an application meets minimum requirements, it will then “be processed according to the six
selection factors in the skilled worker points grid.”38
B. Selection Criteria
Applicants must obtain at least sixty-seven points out of a total of one hundred possible points on
the selection grid. According to CIC, “If your score is the same or higher than the pass mark,
then you may qualify to immigrate to Canada as a skilled worker. If your score is lower than the
pass mark, you are not likely to qualify to immigrate to Canada as a skilled worker.”39
The six selection criteria and the maximum number of points available for each are as follows:
 Education: A maximum of twenty-five points can be earned by a person who has a Master’s
Degree or a Ph.D. and at least seventeen years of full-time or full-time equivalent study. The
lowest number of points available is five for completion of high school.40
 Languages: A maximum of twenty-four points can be awarded to persons who are highly
proficient in both official languages of Canada. An applicant can be awarded up to twentyfour points for basic, moderate, or high proficiency in English and French. Written and oral
tests are administered to ascertain a person’s abilities in different language areas, including
listening, speaking, reading, and writing.41
 Experience: A maximum of twenty-one points can be awarded for experience in approved
occupations. The IRPA allows CIC to designate certain professions as being restricted to
guard against labor surpluses. However, at the present time, it appears that there are no
professions that are designated as such. The maximum of twenty-one points can be earned
with four or more years experience in an approved occupation. For each year less than four,
two points are deducted. The minimum number of fifteen points can be earned through one
year of qualifying experience.42

37 Ministerial Instructions: Ministerial Instructions (MI3): Federal Skilled Workers, Immigrant Investor Program,
Entrepreneurs, CIC, (last modified Jan. 1, 2013).
38 Determine Your Eligibility—Skilled Workers and Professionals, supra note 34.
39 Other Selection Factors—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
skilled/apply-factors.asp (last modified June 26, 2010).
40 Points for Education—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
skilled/factor-education.asp (last modified Mar. 31, 2007).
41 Points for Proficiency in English or French—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC, (last modified Nov. 9, 2011).
42 Points for Work Experience—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
immigrate/skilled/factor-experience.asp (last modified June 26, 2010).
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 26
 Age: A maximum of ten points is awarded to persons who are between twenty-one and fortynine years of age. Persons outside this range lose two points for each year that they are under
twenty-one or over forty-nine.43
 Arranged employment: A person may be awarded ten points for having a permanent job offer
that has been confirmed by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.44
 Adaptability: A person may be awarded ten additional points for a spouse’s education,
previous work in Canada, and family relations in Canada.45
CIC has temporarily stopped accepting new applications under the Skilled Worker program as of
July 1, 2012, in order to reduce a backlog of applications. (This temporary suspension does not
affect applications under the job offer and PhD stream.) CIC will start accepting applications
again when revised selection criteria take effect on May 4, 2013. (See discussion of proposed
changes, below.)
Moreover, CIC currently has an annual cap of 10,000 new Federal Skilled Worker applications
and a cap of 500 for each of the twenty-nine occupations. However, applicants with “qualifying
job offers are not affected by the cap.”46
IV. Pros and Cons of the Points System
Canada’s points system is designed to attract immigrants who show promise of being able to join
in and contribute to their new communities. According to CIC, it has by and large succeeded in
meeting the “immediate and longer-term need for highly skilled professionals, and addresses
Canada’s broader immigration objectives.”47
One of the major advantages of the system is that it is largely transparent. Potential applicants
can review the selection criteria to determine whether they may be able to attain sufficient points
to reach the pass mark of sixty-seven points. Another advantage of the system is that it gives
persons who are unable to travel to Canada to arrange employment a better chance of being
accepted than was previously the case.
One disadvantage of the points system is that transparency can lead to complaints of unfair
treatment. Persons who fall short of the pass mark often believe they should have been awarded

43 Points for Age—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC, (last modified Mar. 31, 2007).
44 Points for Arranged Employment—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
immigrate/skilled/factor-employment.asp (last modified Aug. 9, 2007).
45 Points for Adaptability—Skilled Workers and Professionals, CIC,
skilled/factor-adaptability.asp (last modified Mar. 31, 2007).
46 Ministerial Instructions: Ministerial Instructions (MI3): Federal Skilled Workers, Immigrant Investor Program,
Entrepreneurs, supra note 35.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 27
more points in one or more categories. This is particularly true of the more subjective categories,
such as adaptability.
A 2010 evaluation of the Federal Skilled Workers Program found that, although the program has
“moved towards a more objective, transparent and efficient process of selecting skilled workers,
the processing times remained long and the backlog increased.”48
Professionals who have been unable to find employment in their chosen field or have their
foreign credentials recognized by professional licensing bodies have been another source of
complaints under the current system. Most professions, such as those in medicine and law, are
licensed by provincial governing bodies. For example, each province has its own law society.
Professional licensing bodies have discretion in determining what types of additional training or
examination foreign-trained professionals must undergo before they can practice in that
province. In response, with recent changes to the selection criteria, a new rule will require that
“applicants wanting to immigrate as Federal Skilled Workers would have their foreign education
credentials assessed and verified by designated organizations before they arrive in Canada.”49
According to CIC, the pre-arrival assessment
would let applicants know how their education credentials compare to Canadian
credentials and . . . give immigrants a sense of how Canadian employers are likely to
value their education. This will also screen out people without proper education levels
and is an important step in helping to address the problem of immigrants arriving and not
being able to work in their field.50
V. Recent or Proposed Changes to the System
Recent changes made to the selection criteria that reportedly will go into effect on May 4, 2013,
will provide more points for younger applicants and persons with greater language proficiency.
CIC in a recent press release has outlined the changes, which will include the following:
 Minimum official language thresholds and increased points for official language
proficiency, making language the most important factor in the selection process;
 Increased emphasis on younger immigrants, who are more likely to acquire valuable
Canadian experience, are better positioned to adapt to changing labour market conditions,
and who will spend a greater number of years contributing to Canada’s economy;
 Introduction of the Educational Credential Assessment (ECA), so that education points
awarded reflect the foreign credential’s true value in Canada;
 Changes to the arranged employment process, allowing employers to hire applicants
quickly, if there is a demonstrated need in the Canadian labour market; and

48 Id.
49 News Release, CIC, Minister Kenney Proposes to Assess Foreign Education Credentials Before Skilled Workers
Arrive (Mar. 28, 2012),
50 Id.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 28
 Additional adaptability points for spousal language ability and Canadian
work experience.51
Consideration was given to the need to address the issue of unemployment and
underemployment when making these changes. According to CIC, these changes were instituted
because Canadian and international research had “consistently shown that language proficiency
is the single most important factor in gaining better rates of employment, appropriate
employment and higher earnings”52
As a result, “[l]anguage ability is now the most important
factor on the grid, representing a total of up to 28 points in recognition of its critical importance
in ensuring successful outcomes.”53 CIC also notes that recent studies indicate that “younger
immigrants integrate more rapidly into the labour market and spend a greater number of years
contributing to Canada’s economy.” The revised selection grid awards younger immigrants with
a maximum of 12 points up to age 35, “with diminishing points awarded from 35 to age 46.”

There will be no points awarded after age 46. However, “workers aged 47 or older will continue
to be eligible for the Program.”55
Because Canada has received a large number of applications for permanent residence in recent
years, consideration has been given to raising the pass mark from the current sixty-seven points
to a higher number. The previous pass mark of seventy-five points was lowered after backlogs
had been reduced. However, with the recent change to the selection criteria, the pass mark
remains at sixty-seven.
VI. Employment Outcomes
The philosophy behind the current Canadian immigration law is that most promising immigrants
are able to become well-established in Canada. The government appears to believe that the
current system is generally working well, although it has acknowledged that despite the high
level of education of immigrants,56 the problem of unemployment and underemployment has
grown in recent years. A Country Profile by the Migration Policy Institute, which looked at
immigrants in the workplace, states the following:
In their first years after arrival, immigrants tend to have lower rates of labor market
participation than the Canadian-born population. This is because a number of migrants
spend time upgrading either professional, trade, or language skills, or are unable to find
work that matches their skill and education levels.

51 New Federal Skilled Worker Program to Accept Applications Beginning May 4, 2013, CIC, (last modified Dec. 19, 2012).
52 Backgrounder—Overview of the New Federal Skilled Worker Program, CIC,
department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-12-19.asp (last modified Dec. 19, 2012).
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
Canada, Dec. 2008),
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 29
In the first quarter of 2011, the unemployment rate for native-born Canadians was 6.3
percent, compared to 9.1 percent for all immigrants and 14.2 percent for recent
immigrants. Eventually, the labor force participation rates of the foreign born converge
with those of the Canadian-born population. For instance, 91 percent of male immigrants
aged 25 to 44 who arrived in Canada between 1981 and 1991 participate in the labor
force, while 92.5 percent of Canadian-born men in the same age bracket are in the
labor force.
Yet many immigrants—particularly new arrivals—have difficulty fully participating, and
are often underemployed or overly represented in low paying jobs. There is considerable
concern about the ability of immigrants to quickly and easily convert their often high
human capital and willingness to work into strong employment, earnings, and
socioeconomic mobility.
A number of recent studies have found significant and sustained income differences
between newcomers and the Canadian-born population. Among immigrants who arrived
in the later part of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the gap in initial earnings relative
to the Canadian-born population has steadily increased over time, and this gap does not
appear to close quickly with length of time in the country. Statistics Canada found that
16.5 percent of immigrants were classified as “low income” for at least seven of their first
ten years in the country, and all immigrants are more likely than native-born Canadians to
be low income. Furthermore, even those immigrants who have lived in the country for ten
years or more do not match the national average for earnings.57
More recent data found that in 2011, the employment rate of core-aged immigrants was 75.6%,
compared with 82.9% for their Canadian-born counterparts.58 Moreover, “[e]mployment rates
were progressively higher the longer immigrants had been in the country. In 2011, these rates
ranged from 63.5% among those in the country for five years or less (very recent immigrants)
to 79.8% among those here for more than a decade.”59
In addition, the recent changes to the selection criteria, as outlined above, were implemented in
order to address some of these issues. In a December 2012 press release, Citizenship,
Immigration, and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney stated that “[f]or too long, too many
immigrants to Canada have experienced underemployment and unemployment, and this has been
detrimental to these newcomers and to the Canadian economy.”60
VII. Services for Immigrants
Persons accepted for permanent residence in Canada generally have immediate access to all
social services and enjoy the same constitutional rights and protections as Canadian citizens.

57 A.E. Challinor, Canada’s Immigration Policy: A Focus on Human Capital, MIGRATION INFORMATION SOURCE
(Migration Policy Institute, Sept. 2011),
58 Study: Canada’s Immigrant Labour Market, 2008 to 2011, STATISTICS CANADA, (last updated Dec. 14, 2012). For more analysis on recent Canadian
immigrant labour market trends, see Analysis of the Canadian Immigrant Labour Market, 2008 to 2011, STATISTICS
CANADA, (last updated Dec. 20, 2012).
59 Id.
60 New Federal Skilled Worker Program to Accept Applications Beginning May 4, 2013, supra note 49.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 30
Immigrants can enroll in the health insurance programs run by the provinces, receive free
language training, get assistance in finding employment and housing, enroll in elementary and
secondary schools, and pay in-province college tuition.
In order to assist immigrants in learning for which benefits they may be eligible, Services
Canada has created a benefits homepage.61
VIII. Illegal Immigration
A. Statistics on Illegal Immigrants
Although there are no official statistics on the number of illegal immigrants in Canada, some
estimate that there may be between 20,000 and 200,000 undocumented workers living in the
In 2008, the Toronto Star reported that Canada’s border agency had lost track of
41,000 illegal immigrants.63
B. Sanctions for Unlawful Entry and Overstaying
The IRPA does not specifically criminalize unlawfully entering the country or unlawfully
overstaying a visa. Both of these types of actions, however, fall under the general prohibition
against contravening the law without exercising due diligence to prevent doing so. Crown
prosecutors have discretion to try general IRPA offenses either by way of an indictment or in
summary proceedings. The distinction between indictable and summary offenses is similar to
the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in the United States, and a crime that can be
tried either by way of an indictment or in summary proceedings is considered to be a “hybrid”
offense. The maximum penalty for a person who commits such a general offense as entering the
country unlawfully or unlawfully overstaying a visa is a fine of Can$50,000 and imprisonment
for two years, if prosecuted by way of an indictment, and a fine of Can$10,000 and
imprisonment for six months, if prosecuted in summary proceedings.64
Crown prosecutors
usually base their decisions as to whether a defendant should be tried by way of an indictment or
in summary proceedings upon such factors as the seriousness of the violation, the defendant’s
intentions, and the defendant’s prior record.
While the IRPA does provide for the prosecution of persons who enter the country illegally or
illegally overstay a visa, trials for these offenses are rare. Most persons caught violating the
general provisions of the immigration laws are deported or ordered to leave Canada.65

61 I Am a Newcomer to Canada, CANADABENEFITS.GC.CA,
lang=eng&catid=27&geo=99 (last modified Mar. 1, 2013).
62 Lilian Magalhaes et al., Undocumented Migrants in Canada: A Scope Literature Review on Health, Access to
Services, and Working Conditions, 12(1) J. IMMIGR. & MINORITY HEALTH 132, 151 (2010),
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084189/.
63 Richard Brennan, 41,000 Illegal Immigrants Gone Missing, TORONTO STAR (May 6, 2008),
64 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27, § 124(1)(a).
65 Information obtained from the Immigration Office at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC, in 2006.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 31
C. Sanctions for Hiring Undocumented Workers
Another general offense under the IRPA is hiring undocumented workers. Section 124(1)(c)
states that anyone “who employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is
not authorized under this Act to be employed” is guilty of an offense. The maximum penalties
for this offense are the same as those for entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa
illegally. A person is not guilty of the offense of illegally hiring an undocumented worker if he
or she exercised “due diligence.”66
The Act and its regulations do not specify what the accused
must show in order to prove that he or she did in fact exercise due diligence.
The IRPA also makes both counseling misrepresentation and general misrepresentation criminal
offenses. Misrepresentation can be committed by withholding material facts, giving misleading
information, and refusing to answer questions in legal proceedings.67
These offenses are
punishable with a maximum fine of Can$100,000 and imprisonment for five years, if prosecuted
by way of an indictment, and a maximum fine of Can$50,000 and two years of imprisonment, if
prosecuted in summary proceedings.
In addition to criminalizing misrepresentation, the IRPA has special provisions for using,
exporting, and dealing in forged documents that purport to establish a person’s identity. Using a
forged document is punishable with up to five years of imprisonment, and exporting or dealing in
forged documents is punishable with up to fourteen years of imprisonment. Canada has had
numerous problems with forged passports. In several reported cases, international incidents have
arisen out of discoveries that foreign intelligence agencies were using forged Canadian passports.
Forged Canadian passports are reportedly popular with criminals because immigration officials
in other countries are less likely to regard them with suspicion, due to the fact that Canada has a
relatively large and diverse immigrant population.
Along with the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, Canada also has strict laws against human
smuggling and trafficking. A person who smuggles fewer than ten persons into the country is
liable on a first offense to a fine of up to Can$500,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years. For
a subsequent offense, the maximum fine is doubled and the maximum period of imprisonment is
raised to fourteen years. Those who smuggle more than ten persons into the country are liable to
a fine of up to Can$1,000,000 and imprisonment for life. Disembarking persons at sea is a
separate offense that is also punishable with a fine of up to Can$1,000,000 and imprisonment for
life. This section was created in response to several instances in which owners of foreign boats
filled them with illegal aliens and abandoned ship just before they washed up on Canadian
shores. In determining the appropriate sentence for persons who engage in human trafficking,
judges must consider such aggravating factors as whether the aliens suffered any bodily harm or
degrading treatment.

66 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, § 124.
67 Id. § 127.
Points-based Immigration Systems: Canada
The Law Library of Congress 32
D. Border Security
Border security and management is primarily the responsibility of the Canada Border Services
Agency (CBSA). Its mandate is to ensure “the security and prosperity of Canada by managing
the access of people and goods to and from Canada.”68
The Agency’s legislative, regulatory and
partnership responsibilities include
 administering legislation that governs the admissibility of people and goods, plants and
animals into and out of Canada;
 detaining those people who may pose a threat to Canada;
 removing people who are inadmissible to Canada, including those involved in terrorism,
organized crime, war crimes or crimes against humanity;
 interdicting illegal goods entering or leaving the country;
 protecting food safety, plant and animal health, and Canada’s resource base;
 promoting Canadian business and economic benefits by administering trade legislation
and trade agreements to meet Canada’s international obligations;
 enforcing trade remedies that help protect Canadian industry from the injurious effects of
dumped and subsidized imported goods;
 administering a fair and impartial redress mechanism;
 promoting Canadian interests in various international forums and with international
organizations; and
 collecting applicable duties and taxes on imported goods.69
On February 4, 2011, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama
announced the Beyond the Border Declaration, which “outlines joint priorities to strengthen
shared security and improve the legitimate flow of people, goods and services across our
This action plan “sets out joint priorities for achieving that vision within the four
areas of cooperation identified in the Beyond the Border Declaration: addressing threats early;
trade facilitation, economic growth and jobs; cross-border law enforcement; and critical
infrastructure and cyber-security.”71

68 About the CBSA, CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY (CBSA), (last modified June 7, 2011).
69 Id.
70 Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, CANADA’S ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN, GOVERNMENT OF
CANADA, (last visited Mar. 1,
71 Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security
and Economic Competitiveness (2011),
The Law Library of Congress 33 33
Clare Feikert-Ahalt
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
SUMMARY The United Kingdom (UK) introduced a points-based program in 2003 to simplify its
immigration system. The law provides for five different tiers, with additional categories
and points awarded for different attributes within those tiers. The most popular tier used is
Tier 1, for high-value migrants. Most of the tiers require that the applicant have a job offer
and be sponsored by an employer licensed by the UK Border Agency. This sponsorship
aims to make the employer responsible for the migrant worker and includes notification
requirements if the employee stops working. Illegal immigration does remain a problem in
the UK, and the difficulty in determining an exact number of illegal immigrants present is
exacerbated by the lack of exit controls.
I. Introduction
Since 1891 it has been established at common law that “no alien has any right to enter (what is
now the United Kingdom) except by leave of the Crown.”1
The Aliens Restriction Act 1914,2
the Aliens Restriction (Amending) Act 1919,3
and Rules and Orders made under these Acts4
gave the common law a statutory basis and formed the restrictions on immigration for much of
the twentieth century. The statutory regime governing immigration in the United Kingdom (UK)
is now contained in the Immigration Act 19715
and the Immigration Rules6 made under it. The
law requires that individuals who are not British or Commonwealth citizens with the right of
abode in the UK, nor members of the European Economic Area,7
obtain leave to enter the UK
from an immigration officer upon their arrival.8

1 Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy [1891] A.C. 272, followed in Schmidt v. Home Office [1969] 2 Ch. 149.
2 Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 12.
3 Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, c. 92,
4 Aliens Order, (1920) Stat R. & O. 448 (as amended).
Immigration Act 1971, c. 77,
Immigration Rules (as amended),
immigrationrules/; R v. Chief Immigration Officer, Heathrow Airport, ex. p. Salamat Bibi [1976] 3 All ER 843 (CA)
per Roskill, LJ: “these rules are [not administrative practice and are] just as much delegated legislation as any other
form of rule making activity … [and] to my mind, are just as much a part of the law of England as the 1971 Act
7 The European Economic Area consists of the Members of the European Union, plus Norway, Iceland, and
Immigration Act 1971, c. 77 § 3,
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 34
II. Number of Immigrants
The estimate for the population of the UK as of 2011 reported that there are 63.2 million people
resident in the UK.9
In 2011, estimates show that 566,000 immigrated to the UK with 351,000
emigrating from the UK.10
Twelve percent of the population is foreign born.11
The five most
common countries that foreign-born UK residents come from are India, Poland, Pakistan, the
Republic of Ireland, and Germany.12
III. Current System Overview
The law governing and policy surrounding immigration in the UK is highly complex and
attempts to balance the needs of genuine visitors and the contributions they make to the economy
of the UK with concerns about those that wish to enter for undesirable purposes. This report
details the points-based system for worker migration into the UK.
A. Points-Based Migration
The points-based migration system was introduced a decade ago in 2003 and is modeled on the
Australian system.13
The UK Border Agency is responsible for implementing the points-based
system, which aims to provide a simplified immigration system and attract migrants who will
contribute to the UK. The system is structured so that greater emphasis is placed on employers
who sponsor applicants to keep track of their employees and report any suspected abuses to the
UK Border Agency.14
By tying these requirements to the employer, the UK aims to improve
compliance with its immigration system and reduce abuse.15

There are five different tiers, which are further broken down into different categories with
varying requirements that must be met before an applicant is provided with a visa for entry:

9 UK Population Estimate Revealed, OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, Dec. 2012,
10 Long-Term International Migration, 2011, OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, Nov. 2012,
11 Population by Country of Birth and Nationality Report, OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, Aug 2012,–What-are-the-latest-figures-.
12 Ch. 3, Population by Country of Birth and Nationality Report, OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS, Aug. 2012,–Which-countries-are-non-UK-born-residents-and-non-British-nationals-from-.
15 Id. at 4.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 35
Tier 1: High-Value Migrants16
Tier 2: Skilled Workers17
Tier 3: Low-Skilled Workers
Tier 4: Students
Tier 5: Temporary Workers
Each of the tiers has different categories within it, which award points in different ways for
different attributes of the applicant. Distribution of the points is designed in a way to ensure that
applicants who will benefit the UK are provided entry, with points “being awarded to reflect the
migrant’s ability, experience and age—and, when appropriate, the level of need in the migrant’s
chosen industry.”
With the exclusion of Tier 1, applicants must have a job offer from, and be
sponsored by, an employer who is licensed by the UK Border Agency.19

In all categories for in-country applications, to be eligible the applicant must have entered the
UK legally.20
B. Tier 1: High-Value Migrants
This tier is designed to contribute to the UK’s growth and productivity.21
It aims to ensure that
the most highly skilled individuals and investors with substantial funds can qualify for entry and
leave to remain in the UK. There are four categories within Tier 1:
 Exceptional Talent, “for exceptionally talented individuals in the fields of science,
humanities, engineering and the arts, who wish to work in the UK. These individuals are
those who are already internationally recognised at the highest level as world leaders in their
particular field, or who have already demonstrated exceptional promise in the fields of
science, humanities and engineering and are likely to become world leaders in their particular
Leave to remain is granted for up to three years.23
The initial application must be

16 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 245B. See also Skilled Workers, UK BORDER AGENCY, http://www.ukba. (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
17 High-Value Migrants, UK BORDER AGENCY,
working/tier1/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
18 Quick Guide to the Points-Based System, UK BORDER AGENCY, (last visited Feb. 25, 2013).
19 Id.
20 See, e.g., Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶¶ 245CA & 245BF.
21 IAN MACDONALD, QC & RONAN TOAL, supra note 13, ¶ 10.2.
22 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 245B.
23 Id. ¶ 245BC.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 36
endorsed by either the Royal Society, the Arts Council England, the British Academy, or the
Royal Academy of Engineering.
 General, for “highly skilled migrants who wish to work, or become self-employed, to extend
their stay in the UK.”
Leave to remain is granted for up to three years.26
 Entrepreneur, for “for migrants who wish to establish, join or take over one or more
businesses in the UK.”27
Leave to remain is granted for up to three years and four months.28
 Post-Study Worker, for “graduates who have been identified by Higher Education
Institutions as having developed world class innovative ideas or entrepreneurial skills to
extend their stay in the UK after graduation to establish one or more businesses in the UK.”
Leave to remain is granted for one year;29 and
 Investor, for “high net worth individuals making a substantial financial investment to the
Leave to remain is granted for up to three years.31
Tier 1 has recently had a cap added to it and is restricted to 1,000 exceptional individuals,
investors, and entrepreneurs.32
Permanent Residence
The law provides that highly skilled migrants may qualify for permanent residence in the UK
(known as indefinite leave to remain). The requirements are that the applicant must
 not be an illegal entrant;
 have spent a continuous period of five years lawfully resident in the UK and not been absent
for more than 180 days in one year;
 have at least seventy-five points; must have sufficient knowledge of the English language
and life in the UK unless aged under eighteen or over sixty-five; and
 not have breached immigration laws during his or her stay (overstays of twenty-eight days or
less are disregarded for these purposes).

24 Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent), UK BORDER AGENCY,
working/tier1/exceptional-talent/ (last visited Feb. 26, 2013).
25 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 245C.
26 Id. ¶ 245CB.
27 Id. ¶ 245D.
28 Id. ¶ 245DC.
29 Id. 245F.
30 Id. ¶ 245E.
31 Id. ¶ 245EE.
32 NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, supra note 14, ¶ 1.16.
33 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 245BF.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 37
C. Tier 2: Skilled Workers
This tier encompasses skilled workers that have a job offer in an area where there is a labor
shortage in the UK.34
Areas of the labor market where there are shortages are determined by the
Migration Advisory Committee.35 Skilled workers require a job offer from an employer within
the UK that has been licensed by the UK Border Agency as a sponsor.
Categories within this
tier include:
 Intracompany Transfers, for “multinational employers to transfer their existing employees
from outside the EEA to their UK branch for training purposes or to fill a specific vacancy
that cannot be filled by a British or EEA worker.”
Within this category are four
subcategories: short-term staff, long-term staff, graduate trainees, and skills transfers.38

Leave to remain varies according to which subcategory the employee is present in the UK
under, and may be granted for up to three years and one month.
 General Migrants; Minister of Religion; and Sportspersons. This category is provided to
“enable UK employers to recruit workers from outside the EEA to fill a particular vacancy
that cannot be filled by a British or EEA worker.”
Leave to remain may be granted for up
to three years and one month.40
The category was recently further restricted and is now limited to 20,700 people per year, who
must have a job offer for a position that requires a college degree.41
This cap excludes
individuals that earn £150,000 (approximately US$240,000) per year and
intracompany transfers.

Permanent Residence
Tier 2 workers are eligible for permanent residence on generally the same basis as those in Tier

  1. There are a number of additional criteria that individuals who are in the UK as Tier 2
    intracompany transfers, general migrants, ministers of religion, and sportspersons must meet
    when applying for permanent residence. One of the most notable additional criteria is a
    certificate in writing from the sponsoring employer that “(i) he still requires the applicant for the

34 IAN MACDONALD, QC & RONAN TOAL, supra note 13, ¶ 10.6.
35 National Audit Office, supra note 14, ¶ 2.
36 Id. ¶ 1.
37 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 245G.
38 Id. ¶ 245GC.
39 Id. ¶ 245H.
40 Id. ¶ 245HC.
41 Annual Tier 2 Limit Announcement, UK BORDER AGENCY, Apr. 2012,
42 NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, supra note 14, ¶ 1.16.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 38
employment in question, and (ii) he is paid at or above the appropriate rate for the job as stated in
the Codes of Practice in Appendix J.”

D. Tier 3: Low-Skilled Workers
Tier 3 was designed to fill temporary low-skilled labor shortages. However, this tier was never
opened and is currently suspended.
44 The UK closed this tier after it determined that its lowskilled labor needs were being met by workers from within the European Union, who do not
need to obtain a visa to enter and work in the UK.45
E. Tier 5: Temporary Workers
Admission into the UK for temporary workers is provided for by Tier 5 of the points-based
immigration system. There are six categories of Tier 5 temporary workers:
 Creative and Sporting,
 Charity Workers,
 Religious Workers,
 Government Authorized Exchange Programs,
 International Agreements, and
 Youth Mobility Scheme.46
To apply for a visa under almost all Tier 5 categories, the applicant must have a job offer from a
sponsor licensed in the UK, have a valid Certificate of Sponsorship from this sponsor prior to
applying for the visa, and score a certain number of points on an assessment. To qualify as a
Tier 5 temporary worker in most categories the applicant must score thirty points (for a
Certificate of Sponsorship) and ten points by demonstrating they have maintenance funds of at
least £900 (approximately US$1400) in a bank account.47
Certain workers may be exempt from
demonstrating the maintenance funds if an “A rated” sponsor certifies that they will not claim
public funds during their stay as a temporary worker.48

43 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, 245GF(e).
44 MIGRATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LIMITS ON MIGRATION, 2010, ¶ 2.10, available at http://www.ukba.home
45 Id.
47 Home Office UK Border Agency, Tier 5 (Temporary Worker) of the Points-Based System—Policy Guidance,
Dec. 2012, ¶ 135,
48 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, ¶ 105 & App. C, ¶ 8.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 39
A sponsor is a UK-based organization that has registered as a licensed sponsor that meets the
requirements for the particular category of Tier 5. Employers must assign prospective
employees with a certificate of sponsorship, which is required before an application can be made,
and provide assurance that the applicant is able and intends to work in a specific job. 49
Accruing the requisite number of points alone does not guarantee a successful application, and
the UK Border Agency bases its decision on the complete application and evidence provided to
support it.50 Eligibility for entry as a Tier 5 temporary worker may be refused on “general
grounds” even if the applicant is otherwise fully eligible. These general grounds are extensive,
and include a criminal history or a previous breach of the immigration rules.51

  1. Visa Conditions
    Individuals entering as temporary workers may engage in work that is supplementary to work
    that they have been granted leave to enter the country for, provided the job is for less than twenty
    hours per week, does not interfere with the hours for which the Certificate of Sponsorship was
    originally granted, and is “on the shortage occupation list in Appendix K52 of the Immigration
    Rules or a job in the same sector and at the same level as the work for which the Certificate of
    Sponsorship was assigned.”53
    In almost all Tier 5 categories workers may change jobs while in the UK as a Tier 5 worker. The
    new job can be either with the same sponsor or a new one. If a new sponsor is used, the worker
    must be provided with a new certificate of sponsorship, and the applicant must provide new
    evidence that he or she meets the maintenance requirement. The rules do not permit Tier 5
    workers to switch into a different tier or category and they may only stay the maximum time
    permitted in the Tier 5 category they originally selected.

If a temporary workers employment ends before the time allotted in their visa, the UK Border
Agency will reduce the duration of stay to a maximum of sixty days.55
With the exception of
workers in the international agreement category who have worked as private servants in a

49 Home Office UK Border Agency, supra note 47, ¶ 44.
50 Id. ¶ 13.
51 Home Office, UK Border Agency, General Grounds for Refusal, Dec. 2012, http://www.ukba.homeoffice.
52 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, App. K. There are a wide range of jobs that are experiencing shortages and are
listed in this appendix, including civil engineers, biological scientists, software professionals, medical practitioners,
social workers, nurses, dancers, and artists.
53 Home Office, supra note 47, ¶ 158.
54 Id. ¶ 164-5.
55 Id. ¶ 85.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 40
diplomatic household,
56 there is no method through which a person who is in the UK as a Tier 5
worker can apply for permanent residence or citizenship.57

  1. Tier 5 Categories
    The following is a brief summary of some specific provisions that apply to each of the Tier 5
    a. Creative Workers and Sportspersons
    To enter the UK as a sportsperson in the Tier 5 category, the individuals must be internationally
    established at the highest level and/or their employment must make a significant contribution to
    the development and running of high-level sports. Additionally, the sponsor’s endorsement must
    confirm that the post could not be filled by a suitable settled worker in the UK.58
    must be endorsed by a governing body of their sport that is recognized by the UK. Requirements
    for coaches are less onerous and simply require that the individuals be suitably qualified to
    perform the job.
    Sponsors of creative workers must follow a code of practice in the Immigration Rules, which
    requires taking the needs of the resident labor market into account. If a job is not covered by a
    code of practice, the sponsor is required to show that a settled worker could not fill the post.59
    Sportspersons may be in the country for a maximum of twelve months. There are no ways to
    extend in the Tier 5 category past that time.60
    Creative workers may receive entry clearance for
    up to twelve months, extendable for a maximum of twenty-four months, provided they remain
    with the same sponsor.
    b. Religious Workers
    Religious workers may be admitted into the UK for a maximum stay of twenty-four months to
    preach and do both pastoral and nonpastoral work.
    c. Charity Workers
    Charity workers may enter the UK for a maximum of twelve months to do unpaid voluntary
    work. The can not receive paid employment and must intend to carry out work “directly related
    to the purpose of the sponsoring organisation.”

56 Immigration Rules, supra note 6, 245ZS.
57 Tier 5 (Temporary Worker—Government Authorised Exchange), HOME OFFICE: UK BORDER AGENCY,
58 Home Office, supra note 47, ¶ 101.
59 Id. ¶ 104.
60 Id. ¶ 58–62.
61 Id. ¶ 88.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 41
d. Government Authorized Exchange Programs
The Government Authorized Exchange category is “for those coming to the United Kingdom
through approved schemes that aim to share knowledge, experience and best practice through
work placements, whilst experiencing the wider social and cultural setting of the United
Kingdom. This category cannot be used to fill job vacancies or provide a way to bring unskilled
labour to the United Kingdom.”
There are different programs provided for under this
subcategory, including: work experience programs; research programs; and training programs.64

Individuals in this category, with limited exceptions, may not be sponsored by individual
employers or organizations as is required by most other Tier 5 categories. Instead, an
overarching government body is responsible for assigning Certificates of Sponsorship.
Entry into the UK in this category is for a maximum period of twenty-four months.66
e. International Agreements
This category is for individuals that enter the UK under an international agreement. This
category includes private servants in diplomatic households and employees of overseas
governments and international organizations.67
For private servants of diplomatic households the
sponsor must guarantee that the applicant is at least eighteen years old; a named member of staff
of a diplomatic or consular mission with all the privileges and immunities as provided by the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; or a named official employed by an international
organization. The sponsors must also guarantee that the applicant intends to do domestic work
on a full-time basis for them and will not perform other work, and will leave the UK once his or
her permission to stay ends.68
Overseas governments and international organizations that act as
sponsors must guarantee that the applicant is under a contract of employment with them, will
only work in the job specified in the application, and will not change into a different category of
worker within the international agreements category upon entry into the UK.69
Entry into the UK is for a maximum period of twenty-four months, with limited exceptions that
include private servants in diplomatic households and employees of overseas governments.70

62 Id. ¶ 119.
63 Id. ¶ 125.
64 Id.
65 Id. ¶ 127.
66 Id. ¶ 88.
67 Id. ¶ 130.
68 Id. ¶ 132.
69 Id. ¶ 131.
70 Id. ¶ 88.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 42
f. Youth Mobility Scheme
The youth mobility scheme is open to young people aged eighteen to thirty-one on the date of
application. Once in the country, individuals in this category may extend their stay for up to two
years, but may not transfer into another Tier or category.71
Applicants under this category must
give evidence that they have sufficient maintenance by showing a bank balance of at least £1800
(approximately US$3500) to support themselves during their stay.
This program applies to residents of only certain countries, and there are restrictions on the
number of places allotted to each country participating under the program. For 2013, the limits
 Australia—35,000 places
 Canada—5,500 places
 Japan—1,000 places
 Monaco—1,000 places
 New Zealand—10,000 places
 Republic of Korea—1,000 places
 Taiwan—1,000 places.72
Individuals entering under this category may not bring dependents, and applicants must not have
any children under the age of eighteen living with them, or for whom they are financially

IV. Sponsor Responsibilities
As noted above, to help tie in sponsoring employers to immigration enforcement, the sponsors
have a number of duties. They are responsible for keeping records of the applicant’s passport,
immigration documents, and contact details. They are obliged to report any person they sponsor
to the UK Border Agency if
 the worker does not show for work on his or her first day,
 the worker is absent from work for more than ten working days without permission,
 the job has ended for any reason,
 the sponsorship stops for any reason, and
 the worker has any change in circumstances, such as a change of job.74

71 Id. ¶ 35.
72 Youth Mobility Scheme, HOME OFFICE, UK BORDER AGENCY,
73 Home Office, supra note 47, ¶ 35.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 43
Notification requirements also arise if the sponsor believes a worker is breaching the conditions
of his or her immigration status or if the sponsor believes the employee is engaging in criminal
or terrorist activity.75

V. Resident Labor Market Test
As the purpose of the majority of the points-based worker categories is to fill positions that
cannot be filled by a UK resident, there is a resident labor market test that must be performed.
This is designed to ensure that there are no UK residents that are able to perform the job for
which the employer sponsors a migrant worker. This test requires employers to advertize
positions through the Jobcentre Plus and nationally for four weeks before they are able to
sponsor a migrant. The UK Border Agency checks that employers have met this requirement.
VI. Statistics of Applications Under the Points-Based System
The following table provides points-based system data for 2010-11, as reported by the UK
National Audit Office:
Tier Visa Application Apply Within
UK (%)
Apply Outside
UK (%)
Total Total % of
Tier 1 General 55,018 (63%) 31,901 (37%) 86,919 48%
Post-Study 82,455 (89%) 10,379 (11%) 92,834 51%
Investor 337 (45%) 407 (55%) 744 0.4%
Entrepreneur 244 (42%) 336 (58%) 580 0.3%
Total 138,054 (76%) 43,023 (24%) 181,077 50%
Tier 2 General 26,734 (59%) 18,499 (41%) 18,499 40%
Transfer (ICT)
12,732 (20%) 51,358 (80%) 64,090 57%
Minister of
1,132 (61%) 739 (39%) 1,871 2%
Sportsperson 181 (27%) 494 (73%) 675 1%
Total Tier 2 40,779 (36%) 71,090 (64%) 111,869 31%
Tier 5 Total Tier 5 454 (1%) 67,469 (99%) 67,923 19%
Total 179,287 (50%) 181,582 (50%) 360,869
POINTS-BASED SYSTEM—WORK ROUTES, 2010–11, H.C. 819, at 13,

74 Id. ¶ 60.
75 Id. ¶ 60.
76 NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, supra note 14, ¶ 3.18.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 44
VII. National Audit Office Review of the System
In 2011, the National Audit Office (NAO) undertook a substantive review of the points-based
migration system. It found a number of areas in which the system was operating effectively, and
other areas in which it was not meeting its aims.77

The NAO noted that Tier 1 partially achieved its objective, and around 60% of workers who
stayed in the UK after studying worked in skilled or highly skilled professions.78
However, in
the Tier 1 post-study work route, the NAO found that it was “unlikely to have met its original
objective of selecting only the most able international students to work in the UK.”

The review found that Tier 2 migrants “largely met employers’ needs for skilled workers
although a third of employers . . . wanted to recruit more skilled foreign workers than they were
able to.”80 The NAO noted that most migrants did not end up working in positions that were
acute or high-priority shortages.
The IT systems through which the points-based system operates were criticized for not being
able to extrapolate data to enable the UK Border agency to assess and manage compliance with
the immigration controls. 81
While the focus of the system is on employers to monitor their migrant employees’ compliance
with immigration rules, the NAO has found that the UK Border Agency is not adequately
managing the risk of noncompliance of sponsors with their monitoring and reporting role.
Specifically, it notes that the UK Border Agency does not “yet have an adequate grip on how
well sponsors are fulfilling their duties.”
It has only visited 15% of the employers that it has
licensed as sponsors, down from a goal of 40%.
83 There is further disorganization regarding
how many should be visited, and there have been no statistics on the proportion of visits that
have identified issues of compliance.84
Despite these issues, the UK Border Agency has reported
that 96% of its sponsor employers are compliant with the immigration rules.

77 Id. ¶ 14.
78 Id. ¶ 7.
79 Id. ¶ 5.
80 Id. ¶ 8.
81 Id. ¶ 14.
82 Id. ¶ 16.
83 Id. ¶ 3.15.
84 Id. ¶ 16.
85 Id. ¶ 16.
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 45
VIII. Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration is a continuing problem in the UK and as the NAO has noted, it is
exacerbated by the lack of exit controls that make verifying whether individuals have overstayed
their permitted time extremely difficult. The government has declined to disclose the top three
countries for which illegal immigrants originate from, but has stated that the majority come to
the UK through Turkey and then into Greece.86

The NAO notes that under the points-based system the UK Border Agency has not sufficiently
followed up with workers to ensure that they leave the UK once their leave to remain expires.
There are estimates that up to 181,000 migrants of all visa types are still in the UK after the
expiration of their leave to remain.87
This has been attributed in part to the lack of exit checks,
making it almost impossible to identify individuals who overstay, and to IT systems that are
unable to identify individuals who need to renew their visas. 88

The government has established an E-borders program, which requires carriers to provide certain
information regarding the passengers and crew they carry. Carriers are under a mandatory duty
to provide travel document information for crew and passengers, as well as the name of the
carrier and its departure and arrival points when requested. The information must only be given
when requested, and at the point when no other embarkation for other passengers or crew is
Carriers are also required to provide additional data, such as passenger information
that includes the name, address, telephone numbers, ticketing information, and travel itinerary of
the passengers.90
A Code of Practice provides that data collected by the UK Border Agency may
be shared with other law enforcement agencies in the UK.91
One of the controversial issues of
this system is extending it to ports and railway stations within the EU as a number of member
states view sharing passenger and crew information as violating the European Union’s free
movement laws.92
In addition to preventing individuals from illegally entering the country, the UK also has a law
that requires employers to verify that all employees they hire are able to lawfully work in the
UK. Employers that fail to do so and employ people in the UK without authority to work can be
fined. This law is actively enforced and in “2010–11, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) collected

86 7 Mar. 2011, HANSARD, H.C. (6th ser.) 627,
87 NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, supra note 14, ¶ 17.
88 Id. ¶ 3.9.
89 UK Border Agency, E-Borders Overview of Legislation, at 3,
documents/travel-customs/ebordersoverview, contained in The Immigration and Police (Passenger, Crew and
Service Information) Order 2008, SI 2008/5,
90 Id.
91 The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (Data Sharing of Practice) Order 2008, SI 2008/8,
92 Brian Wheeler, The Truth Behind UK Migration Figures, BBC NEWS (Oct. 12, 2012),
Points-based Immigration Systems: United Kingdom
The Law Library of Congress 46
£6.91 million [approximately US$11 million] in illegal working civil penalties from those
employers who were found to be employing illegal workers.”93
The issue of compliance with immigration rules has been further compounded by the faltering
economy. The UK has recently cut 20% of the UK Border Agency’s budget, and there have
been over 5,200 job losses from this Agency. Despite this big drop in funding and staffing, the
government claims that the work of the UK Border Agency has not been undermined and that the
use of better technology and intelligence are resulting in higher numbers of illegal immigrants
being caught at the border.94

93 20 Feb. 2012, HANSARD, H.C. (6th ser.) 512W,
94 7 Mar. 2011, HANSARD, H.C. (6th ser.) 627,


The best way to get a Crane Card

Safe Work Australia Contact Information
Phone 1300 551 832 | Email | Web
978-1-76028-492-3 [Multi-Vol. Set]
978-1-76028-472-5 [PDF]
978-1-76028-473-2 [DOCX]
This General Guide provides information on how to manage the risks of cranes at a workplace.
It is supported by specific guides on tower cranes, mobile cranes, inspecting and maintaining
cranes, and information sheets on:
„ Bridge and gantry cranes
„ Vehicle loading cranes
„ Vessel-mounted cranes
„ Crane-lifted work boxes
„ Using other powered mobile plant as a crane, and
„ Quick-hitches for earthmoving machinery.
What is a crane?
A crane is an item of plant intended for raising or lowering a load and moving it horizontally
including the supporting structure of the crane and its foundations.
There are a range of ‘fixed’ (tower, bridge, gantry, portal boom, vessel-mounted) and ‘mobile’
(slewing, non-slewing, vehicle loading) cranes.
A range of multi-purpose powered mobile plant including multi-purpose tool carriers and
telescopic handlers may be classed as cranes in some operating configurations.
Further crane related definitions are in Appendix A.
Who should use this Guide?
You should use this guide if you own, hire, lease, handle, store, transport, maintain or manage
the use of a crane in the workplace.
Who has duties under the law?
Everyone in the workplace has a work health and safety duty. A range of people have specific
responsibilities for cranes including the:
„ crane designer, manufacturer, importer and/or supplier
„ crane owner and other persons with management or control of the crane or the
workplace where a crane will operate
„ competent person who inspects cranes, and
„ crane operator.
The main duties are set out in Table 1.
Table 1 Duty holders and their obligations
Who Duties
A person
a business or
A person conducting a business or undertaking has the primary duty
to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, workers and other people
are not exposed to health and safety risks arising from the business or
This duty requires the person to manage risks by eliminating health
and safety risks so far as is reasonably practicable, and if it is not
reasonably practicable to eliminate the risks, by minimising those risks
so far as is reasonably practicable. It also includes ensuring so far as is
reasonably practicable the:
„ provision and maintenance of safe plant including cranes, and
„ safe use, handling, storage and transport of plant.
The Work Health and Safety (WHS) Regulations include specific duties
for a person conducting a business or undertaking with management
or control of plant, powered mobile plant and plant that lifts or
suspends loads.
If you own a crane you are the person with management or control of
that plant.
If you hire or lease a crane, you have management or control of that
plant for the period you have hired it. Both you and the person you
have hired or leased it from will have duties to eliminate or minimise
the risks associated with the plant, so far as is reasonably practicable.
suppliers and
Designers, manufacturers, suppliers and importers of plant must
ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the plant they design,
manufacture, import or supply is without risks to health and safety.
This duty includes carrying out analysis, testing or an examination and
providing specific information about the plant. Information must, so far
as is reasonably practicable, be passed on from the designer through
to the manufacturer and supplier to the end user.
Suppliers must provide a purchaser of a crane which requires plant
design registration with the design registration number.
Officers Officers, such as company directors, have a duty to exercise due
diligence to ensure the business or undertaking complies with the WHS
Act and Regulations. This includes taking reasonable steps to ensure
the business or undertaking has and uses appropriate resources and
processes to eliminate or minimise risks from plant.
and others
Workers and other people at the workplace must take reasonable care
for their own health and safety, co-operate with reasonable policies,
procedures and instructions and not adversely affect other people’s
health and safety.
Further information on the duties relating to cranes is in the Code of Practice: Managing the
risks of plant in the workplace.
How can risks be managed?
Use the following steps to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, workers and other
people are not exposed to health and safety risks:

  1. Find out what could cause harm. The following can help you identify potential hazards:
    „ Observe the workplace to identify areas where cranes operate and how they interact with
    other vehicles, pedestrians and fixed structures like overhead electric lines.
    „ Ask the crane operator, crane crew, and others about problems they encounter at the
    workplace including with operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, transport and storage
    „ Review your inspection, test and maintenance records e.g. log books, and incident and
    injury records including near misses.
  2. Assess the risk. In many cases the risks and related control measures will be well known.
    In other cases you may need to carry out a risk assessment to identify the likelihood of
    somebody being harmed by the hazard and how serious the harm could be.
    People who work with or near cranes are most at risk. Some of the risks when using a crane
    „ structural failure, overturning, or collapse of the crane
    „ contact or collision of the crane or its load with people or other plant and structures, and
    „ falling objects.
    A risk assessment can help you determine what action you should take to control the risk and
    how urgently the action needs to be taken.
  3. Take action to control the risk. The WHS laws require a business or undertaking do
    everything reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise risks.
    The ways of controlling risks are ranked from the highest level of protection and reliability to
    the lowest. This ranking is known as the hierarchy of risk control. You must work through this
    hierarchy to manage risks.
    You need to consider possible control measures and make a decision about which are
    reasonably practicable for your workplace. Deciding what is reasonably practicable includes
    the availability and suitability of control measures, with a preference for using substitution,
    isolation or engineering controls to minimise risks before using administrative controls or
    personal protective equipment (PPE). Cost may also be relevant, but you can only consider
    this after an effective review of all reasonably practicable control measures.
    The first thing to consider is whether crane related hazards can be completely removed from
    the workplace. For example, designing items of a size, shape and weight so they can be
    delivered, handled or assembled at the location where they will be used without the need for
    a crane.
    If it is not reasonably practicable to completely eliminate the risk then consider the following
    options in the order they appear below to minimise risks, so far as is reasonably practicable:
    „ substitute the hazard for something safer e.g. replace a crane operating cabin with a
    restricted field of vision with one that has a clear field of vision or use a remote control, for
    example a pendant control
    „ isolate the hazard from people e.g. use concrete barriers to create an exclusion zone to
    separate crane operations from workers and powered mobile plant, and
    „ use engineering controls e.g. enclosing the operator with a falling objects protective
    structure (FOPS) to minimise the risk of the operator being hit by a falling object.






If after implementing the above control measures a risk still remains, consider the following controls
in the order below to minimise the remaining risk, so far as is reasonably practicable:
„ use administrative controls e.g. schedule crane operations to avoid or reduce the need for
pedestrians and vehicles to interact with the crane in the area of operation, and
„ use PPE e.g. gloves, hard hats, high visibility vests, ear plugs/muffs and eye protection.

  1. Check your control measures. Control measures need to be regularly reviewed to make sure they
    remain effective, taking into consideration changes, the nature and duration of work and that the
    system is working as planned.
    Further information on the risk management process is in the Code of Practice: How to manage
    work health and safety risks.
    Who is involved?
    You must consult your workers and their health and safety representatives, if any, when deciding
    how to manage the risks of using a crane in the workplace.
    If there is more than one business or undertaking involved at your workplace you must consult them
    to find out who is doing what and work together so risks are eliminated or minimised so far as is
    reasonably practicable.
    This may involve discussing site-specific requirements including the type of crane to use, operator
    training and traffic management.
    Further information on consultation requirements is in the Code of Practice: Work health and safety
    consultation, co-operation and co-ordination.
    The person with management or control of plant at a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably
    practicable, the plant used is specifically designed to lift or suspend the load. A crane is one type of
    plant generally designed to specially lift and suspend loads.
    The type of work you will be doing, how it will be done and who will be involved should be planned
    and discussed between the people involved in the work before deciding what type of crane will be
    This includes people directly, for example crane operators and other workers and indirectly, for
    example suppliers, designers and crane hirers involved with the work.
    Choosing a crane
    Before you choose a crane you should discuss your workplace needs with suppliers and identify
    cranes most suited to the workplace and the work for which it will be used. Take into consideration
    the complete life cycle of the crane, how long you are likely to keep the crane, how often the crane
    is likely to be used, the conditions under which it will be used and the maximum loads the crane is
    likely to bear.
    A second-hand crane is more likely to have out-dated or missing safety features. Suppliers of
    second-hand cranes must do what is reasonably practicable to supply equipment that is safe to
    use at work and where practicable, fit safety features.
    Some of the things to look for when choosing a crane are:
    „ safe access points e.g. ladders, footholds, steps and grabs rails
    „ seat design e.g. comfort and back support
    „ visibility e.g. mirror, window and windscreen design, and
    „ environmental controls e.g. temperature control units to avoid worker heat stress.


Hiring a crane
Anyone hiring or leasing a crane to others has duties as both a supplier of the crane and as a person
with management or control of the crane at the workplace. They must check the crane is safe to use
and properly maintained and provide specific information with the crane including instructions on
how to operate it safely.
Before you hire a crane you should check it is suitable for its intended use. You should also consider
whether you need to hire a crane only or a crane with a trained and licensed crane crew.
If you do not have the knowledge or expertise about crane specifications, limitations and operational
requirements, you should talk to the crane supplier and provide relevant information about the work
to be done, the workplace and the type of lifts to be completed so the supplier can provide
a suitable crane.
Registering a crane
Some cranes must be registered before they can be used in the workplace. Cranes that are
registrable plant must be design registered before they are supplied and used. Further information
on registration requirements can be provided by the regulator.
More information on registrable plant including cranes is in the Code of Practice: Managing the risks
of plant in the workplace.
Inspection and pre-use safety checks
Inspecting and testing for cranes must include the:
„ major inspection required for registrable mobile and tower cranes
„ regular inspection and testing required for plant, and
„ inspection and testing for plant item re-registration.
Further information on crane inspection and maintenance is in the Guide to inspecting and
maintaining cranes.
Before a crane is used, tests, inspections and specific adjustments must be undertaken to ensure the
crane can be used safely. This includes:
„ workplace factors including ground load bearing capacity, wet or windy conditions are taken
into account
„ to confirm the crane will not adversely affect or be affected by other plant and structures in the
„ installation and commissioning activities are supervised by a competent person
„ the components are assembled in the correct sequence using the right tools and equipment
„ limit switches and load indication devices are functioning and correctly calibrated
„ the crane has been installed and commissioned to the designer’s or manufacturer’s instructions
and specified technical standards
„ the crane is stable, and
„ safe entry to and exit from the crane—including in an emergency.
Emergency plan
An emergency plan must be prepared for each workplace where the crane will operate. The plan
must be tested in the workplace and include emergency procedures like effective response and
evacuation, notifying emergency services and medical treatment. Emergency procedure training
must be provided to workers.
Contact numbers for emergency services should be easily seen or found. Workers should know what
system is in place to contact emergency services and how to use it.
Rescue equipment should be available and easily accessible so an injured worker including the crane
operator can be removed quickly.
Signs displaying evacuation locations should be placed where they are easily seen by workers and
others at the workplace.
The emergency plan should also include how these procedures will apply to people who are near
the crane as well as those people who are operating the crane (e.g. procedures for evacuating the
Documentation and markings
Load charts
A crane of variable radius, for example a tower or mobile crane, will have a crane-specific load chart
(also known as a ‘rated capacity chart’) setting out how the crane lifting capacity varies depending
on how the crane is set up i.e. how far the boom is extended and the angle of the boom. Using the
load chart correctly is critical to ensure the crane is used safely.
Where the crane has one main load chart it should be fixed in the operator’s cabin in a place that is
easy to see and read. Where the crane has more than one load chart, for example for different boom
and fly jib configurations, the charts should be easily accessible for the operator to verify the crane
will not be overloaded. The charts may be kept electronically or in hard copy.
The lifting capacity of a crane is generally limited by:
„ the structural strength when the working radius is small, and
„ stability when the working radius is greater.
However there are structural limits at both the minimum and maximum working radius. If a crane is
overloaded, a structural or mechanical component of the crane may fail or the crane may overturn.
The lifting capacities specified on a load chart should not be exceeded except during testing of the
crane by a competent person under controlled conditions.
Each load chart should include enough information to identify the crane configuration it applies to.
For example:
„ the safe working zone
„ the counterweight mass
„ whether a fly jib is fitted, in use, in place or stowed
„ outrigger extension or pick-and-carry mode
„ maximum speed for mobiling a load
„ rope and reeving details, including number of falls of rope in the hook block
„ main or auxiliary hoist in use, and
„ whether the hook block is included or excluded.
Some important factors which are often overlooked when reading load charts are:
„ Subtracting the mass of the hook block and lifting slings from the capacity of the crane at the
particular radius. This should be noted on the load chart. For example, if the load chart states the
crane can lift 20 tonnes at a given radius but the hook and lifting gear have a combined mass of
1 tonne, the load to be lifted cannot be more than 19 tonnes. This issue is critical for heavier hook
blocks and lifting gear, for example spreader beams.
„ Subtracting the mass of the fly jib (adjustment mass) from the capacity of the main hook when
lifting from the main hook on the main boom with a fly jib attached to the boom head. This
adjustment mass should be noted on the load chart—there may be two different masses for
some cranes with swing around fly jibs—one for the fly jib in place and another for the stowed
position. Capacities of the main boom are generally based on the fly jib being removed. If this
issue is ignored, the crane is likely to overturn.
„ The increased maximum working radius that may result when using a fly jib.
Limiting and indicating devices
Limiting and indicating devices, for example rated capacity limiters, motion limiting devices, load
indicators and radius indicators are intended to prevent a crane moving beyond its safe operating
limits or to aid crane operators. The devices should not be relied on in place of using the crane’s
load chart and operating instructions. Sole reliance on these devices, especially indicating devices,
in place of safe operating practices may cause an incident.
Where limiting and indicating devices are to be installed on a crane the safety circuits of these
devices should generally meet either:
„ a reliability level of Category 4 under AS 4024.1-2006: Safety of machinery, or
„ a safety integrity level (SIL) of 3 under AS 61508-2011: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/
programmable electronic safety-related systems.
These categories of reliability level and SIL are related to the concept of ‘fail safe’.
Free fall lock-out
When a crane is fitted with a free fall facility this function should be able to be positively locked out
and not able to be unintentionally activated.
Operator protective devices
Suitable operator protective devices must, so far as reasonably practicable, be provided for powered
mobile plant including cranes. Typically these include FOPS and operator restraints e.g. seat belts.
A roll-over protective structure (ROPS) may also be an appropriate device for some types of cranes.
Setting up the crane
Siting the crane
You should choose where to site a crane during the planning phase after considering relevant factors
„ the risk of the crane overturning or collapsing from the:
„ foundations or supporting structure failing, and
„ crane and foundations/supporting structure combination not being able to withstand the
forces likely to be imposed on it
„ the risk of the crane colliding with other plant, structures or objects at the workplace, and
„ the loads and lift paths including the load pickup and drop off or installation locations.
Crane standing area
The crane standing design should conform to the crane manufacturer’s instructions or a competent
person’s recommendations, for example an engineer. The crane standing should be designed to
withstand the forces likely to be imposed on it by the crane while in-service, out-of-service and
during erecting and dismantling. These forces include:
„ the dead weight of the crane
„ the dead weight of the load and lifting attachments
„ dynamic forces caused from the crane moving
„ bearing pressure being applied by the crane’s outriggers and/or tyres/tracks
„ wind loadings, and
„ other loads identified by the designer of the crane standing area.
When a crane is to be supported on, or tied to a permanent or temporary structure, the design of
the structure should be capable of withstanding the forces designed to be imposed on it by the
crane. Precautions should also be taken to ensure the stability of the crane when the crane will be
sited near underground services, excavations or embankments.
Further information on ground conditions and crane support is in the Guide to mobile cranes.
Collision between the crane and other plant and structures
If there is a possibility of cranes colliding with other plant or structures you should position the crane
so the clearance between the crane and its load and other plant, structures and workers minimises
the risk of collision.
Where cranes are operating near one another they may share the same air space. The people in each
work area should consult and develop safe systems of work to make sure there is enough space
between the cranes and where they work. Each work area should nominate a person to implement
the safe system of work.
A safety observer (also known as a ‘spotter’) should be used where a collision between a crane and
other plant or structures may occur.
Where cranes are set up in or near flight paths, you should contact the local airport operator to find
out where these are in the area where the crane is operating. Where necessary, aircraft warning
lights should be fitted to the highest part of the crane.
Working near electric lines
You must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, no person or crane at the workplace comes
within an unsafe distance of an overhead or underground electric line.
If this is not reasonably practicable then you must carry out a risk assessment and implement
control measures to manage the risks. The control measures must be consistent with requirements
of the Electricity Supply Authority.
A safety observer should be used when the crane, its load, or anyone working from the plant are
in motion and likely to enter a restricted work zone established around electric lines.
Electric lines can have significant risks including electrocution, arcing, explosion or fire causing burns,
unpredictable cable whiplash and other objects being electrified like signs, poles, trees or branches.
Contact with energised overhead or underground electric lines can be fatal regardless of the voltage
they carry. It is not necessary to touch an overhead electric line to be electrocuted. A ‘flashover’ or
‘arc’ can electrocute you when you are close to a line conductor.
Most risks can be controlled by observing safe working distances for people and cranes working
near electric lines. Safe working distances will depend on the type of work being carried out and
the voltage of the electric lines. You should contact the relevant Electricity Supply Authority to
determine the type of control measures required. This may include isolating the electric line for
the duration of the work.
Contact with energised overhead electric lines may have an impact on parts of the crane for
example tyres, hydraulic and electrical systems. If contact occurs, the crane should be immediately
placed out-of-service until it has been inspected by a competent person and proven to be safe to
resume normal operation.
Further information about electrical safety is in the Guide for operating cranes and mobile plant
near overhead electric lines or from your Electricity Regulator.
Working at height
People installing, erecting and dismantling some types of cranes may be exposed to the risk of
falling when working at height. An activity carried out in relation to construction work where a
person could fall more than 2 metres is defined as high risk construction work and requires a safe
work method statement (SWMS).
Further guidance on SWMS is in the Code of Practice: Construction work.
To minimise the risk of workers falling from a height control measures may include:
„ temporary work platforms e.g. an elevating work platform
„ travel restraint systems
„ fall-arrest harness systems, and
„ edge protection systems.
Further guidance on controlling the risk of falls is in the Code of Practice: Managing the risk of falls
at workplaces.
Pick and carry
Pick and carry activities occur when a mobile crane carrying a suspended load travels with the load
(also known as mobiling). Pick and carry activities are only to be carried out with cranes designed
for this purpose and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
The rated lifting capacity of pick and carry cranes is de-rated by design to take into account
the reduced stability when the crane moves across various terrain types. Pick and carry crane
manufacturers may also provide a de-rating chart to help determine a crane’s rated lifting capacity
when working on specified side slopes.
Operational risks such as ground conditions, intended travel pathway, and wind speeds also need to
be considered.
Unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer, cranes designed to remain in one location during
the lift, for example vehicle loading cranes, are not to be used in a pick and carry mode.
When plant, for example earthmoving equipment or telescopic handlers are used for pick and carry
activities, the manufacturer’s instructions or those of a competent person must be followed.
Further information on the safe operation of pick and carry cranes is in the Guide to mobile cranes.
Crane stability
Failure to maintain stability is one of the key factors associated with serious crane incidents.
Things to consider are:
„ crane operation parameters resulting in an overturning moment greater than the stabilising
moment of the crane—the crane counterweight generally provides the primary stabilising
„ the ground conditions and means of supporting the outrigger pads or the crane tyres
„ the slope of the ground including both the side slope and the slope of the ground in the
direction of the crane travel if the crane has mobile ratings.
„ wind conditions—will vary depending on the size and shape of the suspended load and crane
boom, and
„ the way loads are lifted or moved e.g. a sudden stop when mobiling a load may cause the load
to swing and destabilise the crane.
If the crane moves unexpectedly while mobiling or slewing, the load may swing unexpectedly.
Cranes should only be sited and operated on stable surfaces, designed by a competent person
where applicable, with the correct bearing pressure and without significant holes or indentations
that may cause the crane and load to move unexpectedly from being unstable.
Further information on crane stability is in the Guide to mobile cranes.
Wind conditions
Winds impose extra loads on a crane and affect the crane’s stability. Where wind speeds are greater
than those recommended by the manufacturer, crane operations should be stopped and if necessary,
the crane should be stowed.
The design wind speed for the crane should be listed in the manufacturer’s instructions and marked
on the load chart(s).
Crane operators should recognise that dependent on the boom length and luffing angle, the wind
speed may be greater at the height of the load compared to the wind speed at the height of the
crane’s cabin. Also wind gusts have a different effect on the crane than a constant wind.
Given these variables, crane operators should make their decision to conduct a lift based on the
information provided by the crane manufacturer, advice provided by competent people like an
engineer, dogger or rigger.
If the crane operator considers it is unsafe to lift the load it should not be lifted until:
„ a written authorisation is provided by a competent person confirming the load is safe to lift and
how it is to be lifted, or
„ the conditions change and the crane operator decides it is safe to make the lift.
Licences to operate cranes
Appendix B lists the types of plant including cranes where the operator must hold a high risk work
A person who operates a crane does not need to be licensed if the work carried out is:
„ as a trainee being supervised by a licensed crane operator
„ solely for manufacturing, testing, trialling, installing, commissioning, maintaining, servicing,
repairing, altering or disposing of the crane
„ solely for moving the crane in the workplace where the crane is operated or used without a load
except when standard weights with predetermined fixing points are used for calibration and
other testing
„ limited to setting up or dismantling the crane and the person carrying out the work holds a high
risk work licence for rigging which qualifies the person to carry out the work, or
„ limited to loading or unloading plant from a vehicle or equipment used to move plant.
The person that slings a load, including selecting and inspecting the lifting gear, and/or directs the
crane operator in the movement of a load when it is out of the crane operator’s view must hold a
dogging or rigging licence (excepting for a licensed vehicle loading, bridge or gantry crane operator
who can sling loads for the type of crane they are licensed to operate).
For further information see the Information Sheet: Vehicle loading cranes.
Regular refresher training is important to ensure licensed crane operators, doggers and riggers
maintain the competencies gained when they undertook their high risk work licence and understand
the cranes they are working with. Refresher training should be conducted as often as necessary to
ensure the crane crew continues to work safely.
Further information on licensing requirements for crane activities is available in the information
sheets on:
„ High risk work licensing for vehicle loading cranes
„ High risk work licensing for bridge and gantry cranes, and
„ High risk work licensing for dogging.
Driver’s licence requirements
A mobile crane may be a registered vehicle under state and territory road laws. Like a truck driver,
a person must hold a current driver’s licence for the class of vehicle before driving a mobile crane
on a public road.
Operating and lifting procedures
Documenting operating and lifting procedures can help define responsibilities and manage crane
activities in a logical and systematic way. This means the crane operation is more likely to be
carried out safely. Lifting procedures should be prepared to suit the crane, the work and the
working conditions. A SWMS will be required for crane work, including work defined as high risk
construction work.
Documented lifting procedures may include:
„ hazards and risk controls to be applied e.g. for electric lines
„ the type of crane or cranes to be used
„ the loads to be lifted including the mass of the lifting equipment e.g. slings and spreader beams
„ verification that the crane standing will support the maximum ground bearing pressure to be
imposed by the crane during operations
„ the position of the crane, loads to be lifted and where e.g. a diagram showing a plan view of the
„ the maximum wind speed for the crane and lower wind speeds for specified loads e.g. where
the load has a large surface area, for example large pressure vessels and tanks
„ the load working radius range with confirmation the loads are within the crane’s capacity at the
maximum radius
„ allowance for the factors that may require de-rating of the crane e.g. for multiple crane lifts,
extra radius caused by tilting of tilt-up panels
„ when a spotter is needed e.g. to prevent a collision or contact with overhead electric lines—the
tasks required, who is responsible for performing them and what communication system is to
be used should also be documented
„ the slinging and lifting sequence, and
„ the rigging requirements of the job.
Lack of reliable communication between a crane operator and dogger or rigger may lead to unsafe
crane operations and contribute to injury to people from dropped loads and collision with other
plant and structures.
Only one dogger should give signals at a time. Signals may be visual, audible or a combination
of both. When more than one dogger is involved in a lift, each dogger should understand when
responsibility for their part of the lifting operation should be handed over to another dogger.
Effective communication is particularly important where the crane operator cannot:
„ see the load, the load’s landing area or the path of travel of the load or the crane
„ make an accurate judgement of distance, and
„ see if the crane or the load may contact overhead electric lines or other obstacles.
People using radio equipment should be familiar with the manufacturer’s operating instructions.
A secure dedicated radio frequency should be selected for the duration of the crane operations
to prevent interference with other radio equipment being used in the vicinity of the crane. A
constant talk method should be used so the people involved are aware of the progress of the lifting
operations. Work should stop immediately if there is a loss of radio communication.
Where radio communication cannot be used other ways to communicate including hand signals, bell,
buzzer and whistle signals should be used. Mobile phones should not be used for directing mobile
crane operations.
Lifting gear
Lifting gear should be checked before and after use and inspected regularly by a competent person
to determine whether it is suitable to keep using. Checks should ensure:
„ the lifting gear is tagged and relevant information listed e.g. relevant information for a chain
sling includes grade of chain, rated capacity, manufacturer, chain size and the relevant Australian
Standard marking
„ lifting hooks are provided with operable safety latches unless a safety latch would increase the
risk e.g. a hook on a tea pot ladle at a smelter
„ shackles used as terminal fittings are prevented from unscrewing e.g. mousing or similar
„ lifting eyes and inserts are compatible
„ lifting slings are not damaged e.g. excessive wear, damaged strands, cracks, deformation or
severe corrosion, and
„ the sling is suitable for the load being lifted including capacity and protection from sharp edges.
The manufacturer’s requirements for lifting gear should be followed including using protective
sleeves and corner pieces. Although the edges of the load may not appear sharp a sling may be
damaged when it is placed under tension.
Lifting materials
Crane-lifted loads should be slung and secured so the load or part of it cannot fall.
Tag lines or similar control devices should be used to control loads while being lifted or suspended.
Material boxes
Material boxes should:
„ have the tare mass and working load limit (WLL) clearly marked
„ be suitable for the material being lifted and be engineer-designed and certified
„ have four slings—one in each corner—attached during lifting
„ have enclosed sides or robust mesh with openings less than the minimum size of materials being
lifted (specifically designed material boxes should be used to lift smaller components)
„ be inspected and maintained and inspection records kept
„ have loads secured against movement, and
„ not have materials stacked higher than the side of the material box unless they are secured—but
at no time should the material box become top heavy.
General lifting
The following principles should be observed when using cranes for general lifting work:
„ Formwork frames should be either tied together, secured in a lifting frame, or lifting slings should
be wrapped around the load.
„ Loads of pipes, joists, timber or sheeting should be strapped together and lifted in a flat position
to prevent individual items slipping.
„ Sheets of plasterboard may be lifted in a specifically designed material box. If a material box is
not used then the lifting system should:
„ be certified by an engineer or a person who holds an intermediate or advanced rigging
„ specify the minimum and maximum number of sheets
„ specify the number and locations of lifting slings, and
„ specify the capacity of lifting slings.
„ Tag lines should be used as needed to control loads.
„ Loads should be supported where possible with dunnage and with the load distributed over the
supporting surface.
„ Wherever basket hitches are used the sling needs to be positively restrained from sliding along
the load.
Lifting people
Except where exempted by the WHS Regulations, people should only be lifted by plant designed
specifically to lift people, for example elevating work platforms. If it is not reasonably practicable to
use plant specifically designed to lift people, a crane-lifted work box may be used to lift workers to
perform minor work for a short amount of time in an elevated work area.
For further information on the safe use of work boxes see the Information Sheet: Crane-lifted work
Crane overload
A crane should never be overloaded. The crane operator or dogger should:
„ verify if the marked load mass is correct and not lift a load in excess of the crane’s rated capacity
„ verify the correct counterweight is correctly mounted and the outrigger settings are in
accordance with the load chart being used, and
„ control crane movement including mobiling to stop excessive load swing that may overload the
Before lifting a load, the crane operator or dogger should check the hoist rope hangs vertically over
the load. Care should be taken to stop the load swinging when lifting the load. The crane operator
should always have the load under control when lowering loads or when the load is suspended.
Falling objects
The risk of falling objects causing injury to workers and other people must be eliminated, or
minimised, so far as reasonably practicable including preventing objects from falling freely, or
providing a system to arrest the fall of the object.
Loads should not be lifted over public access areas including footpaths, roads, highways, railways,
waterways and buildings. If there is a risk of people being hit by falling objects control measures like
exclusion zones or suitably designed gantries should be used to prevent people being hit by falling
objects during lifting operations.
Where possible, site access should be restricted to people who are directly involved with crane
activities. Movement of people and mobile plant at the workplace should be minimised while lifting
is taking place.
Exclusion zones
Exclusion zones should be established around cranes and adjoining areas to stop people entering
the area and risk being injured by the crane or falling objects. The size of the exclusion zone should
be based on a risk assessment.
Where the exclusion zone crosses a public footpath or roadway that needs to be closed or an
overhead protective structure erected you should seek approval from the relevant authority. People
should be safely directed to an alternative footpath. Lane closures and other operations requiring
barricades and signs to be erected should meet local road authority, local government authorities
and relevant building or local laws.
Single crane multiple winch lifts
Some single cranes are designed to lift a load using both the main and auxiliary winches. Single
crane multiple winch lifts can be undertaken on these cranes in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions. This can occur for example, to rotate a prefabricated concrete panel into its vertical
position from a horizontal storage or transport position by using two hoist ropes. Even though the
concrete panel will be suspended by two hoist ropes, each rope usually needs to support more
than 50 per cent of the load during the rotation and one rope will have to support the full weight.
Therefore unless each hoist is capable of supporting the full load it is important to use the main hoist
to support the full load. The actual load to be carried by each winch and rope should be calculated
and documented by a competent person before the lift commences. Where a single crane is used for
mid-air rotation you should:
„ use a crane designed and manufactured for simultaneous multiple winch use
„ follow the crane manufacturer’s instructions
„ if needed, reconfigured the crane before it can be used in this way
„ make sure the main winch and auxiliary winch drives are independent
„ not exceed the rigging maximum design fleet angle
„ rotate as near as possible in line with the plane of the boom to prevent side loading the sheaves
„ monitor the load on the main and auxiliary winches separately and simultaneously to avoid
overloading either rope and to make sure the combined load of both ropes does not exceed the
rated capacity
„ not exceed by more than 10 degrees, or as determined by the manufacturer or a competent
person, the included angle between the main hoist rope and auxiliary hoist rope unless
otherwise specified by the manufacturer, and
„ rotate with enough clearance to make sure the load does not strike the ground, crane or other
A competent person, for example an engineer should confirm the minimum required capacity of
each hoist rope, that is the maximum load placed on each rope during the rotation. Sometimes the
auxiliary winch line passes over the ‘rooster sheave’ which is the name given to the sheave mounted
on a short boom extension. Do not overload the rooster sheave as some are not rated for the full line
pull of the auxiliary winch and are not suitable for this purpose. Rooster sheaves and the associated
rigging on the boom head should be designed and certified by an engineer.
Multiple crane lifts
Lifting a load with two or more cranes requires detailed planning and supervision because the
movement of the load between the cranes may create extra loadings on the cranes, the load and the
lifting gear. The design capacity of a crane will not be the maximum rated capacity but the de-rated
capacity relevant to the multi-crane lift to be carried out. The cranes to be used in the lift will need
to be de-rated.
No load should be lifted simultaneously by more than one crane unless a single crane lift is not
practical and the mulitple crane lifting method ensures the load placed on each crane does not
exceed its de-rated design capacity.
Where multi-crane lifts are carried out, a documented lift plan and procedure should be prepared
by a competent person, for example an engineer, and followed. The crane de-ratings for each of the
cranes used for the multi-crane lift should be identified in the plan.
Where it is necessary to lift a load using more than one crane the person in control of the lift must
hold at least an intermediate rigging high risk work licence.
Cranes used for demolition
Cranes should not be used for demolition (or wrecking) ball work.
If a crane is used for demolition ball work it should be thoroughly inspected and verified by a
competent person after the work is complete as being in a satisfactory condition before it is used
for general lifting. The results of the inspection must be recorded in the crane’s service logbook.
Cranes used for demolition work must be fitted with suitable operator protective devices, for
example a FOPS, to protect the crane operator.
The hoist rope should be prevented from leaving the boom point sheave. This may include fitting
heavy duty rope guards to the sheave to control the slack rope condition that may occur as the ball
falls—damage is likely where the demolition ball is attached to the hoist rope. Hoist ropes should not
be fixed directly to the demolition ball. A length of chain should be used to join the hoist rope to the
demolition ball. The chain should be at least 16 mm and at least 2 metres in length.
Further guidance on demolition is in the Code of Practice: Demolition work.
Cranes not in use
A crane may not be in use if it is unattended, parked or stored. You must make sure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, a crane that is not in use is left in a state that does not create a risk to the
health or safety of a person.
Except in an emergency due to fire or other life threatening reason, the crane operator should never
leave the crane cabin or controls while a load is suspended from the crane. A crane should not be
left unattended unless:
„ loads are removed from the hook or lifting device
„ the hook has been secured or raised to a position where it is clear of other operations
„ powered movements have been disabled, and
„ the keys removed or the starting device locked out.
When leaving a mobile crane unattended for a period of time ensure the crane’s boom is retracted
and lowered as far as possible.
Where there is no risk of a tower crane boom contacting other structures, the crane should be left to
weathervane when unattended according to the crane manufacturer’s instructions.
Where it is necessary to restrict the movement of the boom of a tower crane the method
of tethering, that is securing the boom to prevent slewing, should be according to the crane
manufacturer’s instructions or as determined by an engineer.
If a crane is to be stored it should be prepared to be left unattended and:
„ the manufacturer’s storage instructions followed
„ remote control equipment isolated
„ the power supply and controls isolated and locked off
„ storm anchors applied, if fitted, and
„ doors and windows locked to prevent unauthorised access.
Decommissioning and dismantling
A crane must be decommissioned or dismantled by a competent person and inspections must
be undertaken during the process. A crane should be decommissioned and dismantled according
to the manufacturer’s instructions or where not available, using recommendations prepared by
a competent person.
Record keeping
Records of tests, inspections, maintenance, commissioning, decommissions, dismantling, and
alterations must be kept for registered cranes and made available for examination as required.
The records must be kept for the period the plant is used or until control of the plant transfer
to another person.
Crane records should also include:
„ plant design or item registration information—if applicable
„ final (i.e. as-built and approved) design drawings and calculations
„ methods, data obtained and results on tests carried out on cranes and safety devices
„ compliance statements and test certificates
„ manufacturer’s specifications
„ information on maintenance, major repairs and major modifications carried out
„ information on approved use that deviates from intended operating or design conditions
„ results of risk assessments
„ information, instruction, training provided to workers
„ log books, and
„ operator competencies.
Records should be kept in a suitable format and transferred with ownership of the crane. A crane
service record, for example a maintenance logbook, should be kept and readily available and should:
„ clearly describe the work carried out and the parts replaced, and
„ identify the person or business that completed the work and be dated.
Documentation stating the crane has been inspected by a competent person and is in a safe and
satisfactory condition, should be readily available.
The checks, adjustments, replacement of parts, repairs, inspections performed and irregularities
or damage concerning the crane’s safe use should be recorded.
Boom-type elevating work platform means a telescoping device, hinged device, articulated
device or any combination of these, used to support a platform on which personnel, equipment
and materials may be elevated.
Bridge crane means a crane that:
„ consists of a bridge beam or beams, mounted to end carriages at each end
„ is capable of travelling along elevated runways, and
„ has one or more hoisting mechanisms arranged to traverse across the bridge.
Dogging work means:
„ the application of slinging techniques including the selection and inspection of lifting gear
to safely sling a load, or
„ the directing of a plant operator in the movement of a load when the load is out of the
operator’s view.
Electricity Supply Authority means a person or body engaged in the distribution of electricity to
the public or the transmission or supply, directly or indirectly, to the public. An electricity supply
authority may also be known as a network operator, a network service provider or an electricity
Fail safe means a state or condition where, if any component or function of the plant fails, a system
exists to prevent an increase in the risks. The reliability or safety integrity of the fail safe system
should be commensurate with the determined level of risk, for example Category 1 to Category
4 applied in AS 4024-2006: Safety of machinery.
Gantry crane means a crane that:
„ consists of a bridge beam or beams supported at one or both ends by legs mounted to end
carriages, and
„ is capable of travelling on supporting surfaces or deck levels, whether fixed or not, and
„ has a crab with one or more hoisting units arranged to travel across the bridge.
Hoist means an appliance intended for raising or lowering a load or people and includes an elevating
work platform, a mast climbing work platform, personnel and materials hoist, scaffolding hoist and
serial hoist, but does not include a lift or building maintenance equipment.
Load chart means a notice fitted or displayed in electronic form on or in a crane or hoist specifying
the rated capacities as supplied by the manufacturer or competent person.
Mobile crane means a crane capable of travelling over a supporting surface without the need for
fixed runways and relying only on gravity for stability.
Operator protective device includes a roll-over protective structure (ROPS), falling object protective
structure (FOPS), operator restraining device and seat belt.
Overturning moment means the moment that tends to tip the crane over. When the overturning
moment exceeds the stabilising moment, the crane will overturn, see ‘Stabilising moment’.
Portal boom crane means a boom crane or a jib crane that is mounted on a portal frame that,
in turn, is supported on runways along which the crane travels.
Rated capacity means the maximum gross load that may be applied to the crane while in a
particular working configuration and under a particular condition of use (see WLL).
Reach stacker means a powered reach stacker that incorporates an attachment for lifting and
lowering a shipping container.
Rigging work means:
„ using mechanical load shifting equipment and associated gear to move, place or secure a load
using plant, equipment or members of a structure to ensure the stability of those members, or
„ the setting up or dismantling of cranes or hoists.
Slinging techniques means the exercising of judgement in relation to the suitability and condition
of lifting gear and the method of slinging, by consideration of the nature of the load, its mass and its
centre of gravity.
Stabilising moment means the moment that tends to keep the crane upright. ‘Moment’ is the
engineering calculation of force multiplied by the perpendicular distance between the force and the
turning point.
Working load limit (WLL) means the maximum gross load that may be applied to the lifting gear and
lifting attachments while in a particular working configuration and under a particular condition of use,
see also ‘Rated Capacity’.
The following types of plant require a high risk work licence to operate.
Class of plant Type of plant included in this class Condition
Boom type elevating work
Self-propelled if boom extends >11 m
Trailer mounted if boom extends >11 m
Vehicle mounted if boom extends >11 m
Bridge crane Top running bridge crane if certain conditions apply*
Underslung bridge crane if certain conditions apply*
Concrete placement units Static mounted with delivery boom
Vehicle mounted with delivery boom
Gantry crane Gantry crane if certain conditions apply*
Semi-gantry crane if certain conditions apply*
Portside container crane
Hoist Materials hoist
Personnel and materials hoist
Platform hoist
Mast climbing work
Single mast climber to install
Double mast climber to install
Mobile crane including:
„ Articulated
„ Crawler
„ Trailer mounted
„ Truck mounted
Slewing crane
Non slewing mobile crane if capacity >3 t
Multi-purpose tool carrier
or Telescopic handler
When equipped as a boom-type elevating
work platform
if boom extends >11 m
When equipped as a slewing crane if rated capacity >10 t
When equipped as a non-slewing crane if rated capacity >3 t
Reach Stacker Reach Stacker if capacity >3 t
Tower crane Articulated jib
Trolley jib
Vehicle loading crane Vehicle mounted crane for loading and
unloading the vehicle
if capacity >10 metre tonnes
Work box Personnel work box
First aid box
to direct the crane in certain
conditions e.g. dogger

  • Licence required for cranes with an operator cabin or a pendant control with four or more powered movements

Get a legal immigration to Canada without paying any money

C.D. Howe Institute ISSN 8001-824
US and Canadian
Immigration Policies
Peter Rekai
No. 171, November 2002
The Border Papers
Marching Together to Different Tunes
In this issue…
Canadian immigration authorities will have to toughen up their screening and
monitoring of visitors to prevent terrorists and criminals from joining the large
numbers of entrants to the country ever year. Canada and the United States
should cooperate on border security, though there is no compelling reason for
Canada to harmonize immigration selection with its neighbour.
The Study in Brief
In the wake of the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and in the context of an increasingly integrated and
security-conscious North America, both Canada and the United States have revisited their immigration policies.
Tightening up screening of immigrants and refugee claimants has been a significant focus for change in
both countries. Tightening up screening and monitoring of visitors and other temporary entrants has also
been a priority in the United States. This has not been the case in Canada, a particularly troubling omission
given the expanding role envisaged for foreign temporary workers and international students. Indeed the
lengthy processing and enhanced scrutiny accorded immigrants and refugee claimants may simply persuade
would-be wrongdoers to seek their entry as part of the steady stream of foreign travelers who receive
generous access to Canada.
The solution is not to reduce the inflow of temporary workers and other workers. Rather, Canada needs to
know that these visitors will comply with the terms of their visas, attend the schools in which they are
enrolled, work with their designated employers and leave the country when their visas expire. This
compliance process will require more consideration and resources than the Canadian government has yet
committed. It will also require that a greater burden of costs and responsibilities be assumed by the private
and academic sectors that benefit directly from their presence.
In terms of the flow of people and related security issues at their common border, the United States and
Canada share markedly similar problems and should continue to work together to resolve bilateral difficulties.
It is in the interests of both countries to continue the trend toward formal cooperation and bilateralism that
has been emerging for some years, but which has been accelerated and repackaged since September 11, 2001.
However, while security requires that the two countries move in tandem on a number of border issues,
there is no compelling security rationale for Canada to harmonize its immigrant selection criteria with those
of the United States. Canada has made the pursuit of young skilled immigrants a priority. This contrasts with
the United States’ continuing emphasis on family reunification — and its apparent tolerance for (or reliance
upon) a significant labour force of illegal immigrants.
The Author of This Issue
Peter Rekai is a Toronto lawyer certified as a specialist in immigration law by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
He acts as a consultant to employers, unions, academic institutions and trade organizations on foreign worker
The Border Papers
“The Border Papers” is a project on Canada’s choices regarding North American integration. It is produced
with financial support from the Donner Canadian Foundation and guidance from members of an advisory
board drawn from business, labour and research organizations.

C.D. Howe Institute Commentary© is a periodic analysis of, and commentary on, current public policy issues. The manuscript was copy edited by
Kevin Doyle and prepared for publication by Marie Hubbs and Barry A. Norris. As with all Institute publications, the views expressed here are
those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Institute’s members or Board of Directors. Quotation with appropriate
credit is permissible.
To order this publication, please contact: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd., 5369 Canotek Rd., Unit 1, Ottawa K1J 9J3 (tel.: 613-745-2665;
fax: 613-745-7660; e-mail:, or the C.D. Howe Institute, 125 Adelaide St. E., Toronto M5C 1L7 (tel.: 416-865-1904; fax:
416-865-1866; e-mail:
$12.00; ISBN 0-88806-579-5
ISSN 0824-8001 (print); ISSN 1703-0765 (online)
Can Canada really expect to maintain an independent and distinct
immigration policy in a post–9/11 North America? The answer is a
resounding and unequivocal “yes and no.” This Commentary examines
Canada’s immigration goals and priorities with a view to finding an
appropriate role for a nation that now finds itself with responsibilities that extend
beyond its immediate territory.
Immigration policy has a split personality; it is a discipline dedicated
simultaneously to keeping people out and bringing people in. Whether Canada
can maintain this duality of purpose amid new pressures and responsibilities is the
focus of this Commentary.
While the security side of this issue has been under particular scrutiny, the
Canadian government has been busy renovating its immigrant selection policy,
making it a sharper tool for economic planning. It is a policy markedly different,
and in some ways better defined, than the one envisaged for migrants to the United
States. It is also one that requires certain gates to the world to remain open, a course
of action that seems difficult to reconcile with the increased pressures for tighter
borders. Those pressures come from within the country and from its neighbour
and principal customer, the United States.
In evaluating Canada’s immigration policy, it is critical to understand where it
converges with and differs from that of its US counterpart, where it is headed,
where there is scope for cooperation, and where Canada needs to maintain distinct
policies. This Commentary addresses these issues and concludes that while Canadian
security interests demand a continental and even global focus, Canada’s unique and
innovative selection of immigrants and foreign workers should proceed. There is,
however, an important proviso. The management and monitoring of the increasingly
lucrative flow of temporary entrants through Canada’s borders must be significantly
enhanced. Here Canada is falling short of the high expectations and significant
progress already made in this regard by the United States. Like that country, Canada
should be looking to share the burden of managing the flow of international visitors,
workers and students with those private sector interests who benefit directly from
their arrival.
Where We Come From:
Common Goals of Two Immigrant Nations
Historically, the United States and Canada have shared broadly similar values in
viewing immigration as a cornerstone of nation building. Migration policies in the
two countries have addressed the admission of those seeking permanent resident
status (immigrants) as well as those seeking temporary entry (non-immigrants).
The latter category has included limited-term workers, known as foreign workers,
international students, business travelers and tourists.
C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 1
For their thoughtful reviews and candid comments, I thank Mark Davidson, Rick Harris, Gary
Hufbauer, Richard Kurland and Ted Ruthizer, as well as Danielle Goldfarb and the staff and
fellows at the C.D. Howe Institute.
This Commentary does not address migration and labour issues under the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
In both countries, immigration policies have
• sought to enhance and expand the population, geographical frontiers, and
labour markets by attracting new permanent residents;
• considered family reunification as an important criterion in their selection of
• included a humanitarian component to their selection and admissions policies,
offering protection to the persecuted (refugees and asylum seekers) and the
• accepted and solicited temporary foreign workers to supplement their domestic
workforces — particularly in the face of domestic skill shortages.
Table 1 compares the number of people admitted by category for Canada and the
United States.
Admitting Permanent Residents: The Numbers
The policy platform of the governing Liberal Party in Canada’s most recent general
election1 proposed an optimal annual number of new immigrants, known as
permanent residents, equivalent to one percent of Canada’s population. Immigration
over the five years prior to 2001 was in the range of 0.6 percent-to-0.7 percent of
the population, or between 200,000 and 225,000 immigrants per year (Canada
2001g). Immigration reached its highest level in almost a decade in 2001 with the
arrival of 250,376 immigrants (Canada 2002a). The Liberal government still holds
one percent as its eventual goal.
The 2001 census indicates that, in the prior five years, Canada experienced one
of its lowest-ever rates of population growth. Immigration accounted for most of
the growth that did take place. This census information seems to have triggered a
renewed interest by the government to focus on a one percent immigration target.2
There are no estimates by the Canadian government on annual levels of illegal
migration or on the accumulated total of illegal migrants currently in the country.
Illegal migrants are those foreigners who have entered the country either without
detection or through misrepresentation, or who have overstayed their allotted
time. It would be fair to speculate that the number of illegal migrants in Canada is
far less than the proportionate number in the United States due to Canada’s lack of
a shared border with any third country — particularly a populous developing one.
2 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
1 This campaign promise contained in the Liberal Party Red Book was part of the platform of the
Liberal Party in the 2000 election and remains the long-term goal of the government as indicated
by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the House of Commons in tabling the
department’s annual report on October 31, 2001, summarized in Canada (2001a).
2 While the government gives weight to the census findings as a factor in determining immigration
targets, some critics maintain that demographic trends — the declining Canadian birth rate and
aging population — are factors that are being overrated in the government’s formulation of
immigration targets. Demographer Daniel Stoffman argues this point in his recent book, Who Gets
In (2002).
The United States
The US Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) reports that the United
States admitted 1,064,000 new immigrants
in 2001, equivalent to approximately
0.37 percent of the US population. This
figure does not include the significant
annual illegal movement of migrants to
the United States, which the INS estimates
at about 420,000 (United States 2002d, 1),
or 0.15 percent of the US population.
The US Census Bureau estimates there
was an accumulated total of between
8.7 million and 10.2 million illegal
migrants residing in the country in
2000,3 comprising approximately
three percent of the population of the
entire United States.
The most recent census reveals that
the United States has experienced a sudden jump in its population. This has been
attributed to higher fertility rates among both its native and foreign-born
population as well as to higher immigration levels. The US population growth rate
outstrips the flat Canadian figure.4
Permanent Residents:
Who Gets Chosen and Why
The respective criteria used in selecting permanent residents in Canada and the
United States — where they are known as green card holders — reveals a dramatically
different set of social and economic priorities.
Canadian policy has focused on the young, high-skilled immigrant. Roughly
60 percent of those arriving annually in Canada now fall in the category of economic
immigrants (Canada 2001f). These include mainly skilled workers and their families
and a relatively small business class.5 Skilled-worker immigrants are selected under
a point system that favours individuals with training and experience in skilled
occupations, facility in both official languages, youth, and postsecondary education.
C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 3
3 The Census Bureau notes an assumed undercount of illegal migrants of 15 percent, yielding a
corrected figure of illegal migrants of 10,241,669. See website:
4 See “Special Report: Demography and the West,” The Economist, August 24, 2002, p. 20.
5 Editor’s note: Some commentators suggest that the actual number of skilled immigrants to Canada
is much less because included in that number are the accompanying spouses and children who
may not themselves be skilled. This may be true, but spouses and children of skilled immigrants
are likely to have, or aspire to, similar skills and education. Furthermore, there are many skilled
immigrants who are undercounted because they enter as refugees or sponsored family members.
Also new computer selection criteria for skilled workers introduced in June 2002, credit
applicants who have spouses with postsecondary degrees.
Table 1: Admission Numbers:
Canada vs the United States, 2000
(as % of Canadian
United States
(as % of US
Category of Admission population)
Permanent residents 250,000*
Illegal immigrants n/a 420,000
Temporary workers:
including under NAFTA
1, 234,000
Foreign students 64,000
Refugees 27,000
(incl. Asylees)

  • Permanent resident figures for both countries are 2001.
    Source: Noted in accompanying text.
    Criteria used in
    selecting permanent
    residents in Canada
    and the United States
    reveals a dramatically
    different set of social
    and economic
    4 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    Roughly 25 percent of today’s immigrants fall into the “family class,” which is
    made up largely of the parents and spouses of financially eligible Canadians
    (Canada 2001f). Despite historic support by all Canadian political parties for the
    principle of family reunification, governments, through regulatory amendments
    enacted in the1980s and 1990s, quietly removed the right of Canadians to sponsor
    their siblings, aunts, uncles, and adult children for immigration. Many Canadians
    are still surprised to discover their ineligibility to assist extended family in the
    immigration process.
    The remaining 15 percent of Canada’s immigrant arrivals are comprised of
    refugees and related humanitarian classes (ibid.).
    The United States continues to embrace family reunification as the foundation
    of its immigrant selection process. Approximately 64 percent of the annual legal
    immigrant flow to that country is composed of family-sponsored applicants (United
    States 2002a). Family petitions are processed in a priority sequence reflecting the
    closeness of the relative and allowing certain numerical ceilings based on countries
    of origin.
    Only 17 percent (ibid.) of immigrants fall into an economic migrant category.
    These individuals are mostly sponsored by US employers. Another four percent
    (ibid.) are selected by a lottery designed to enhance a diversity of origin among US
    immigrants. A further 16 percent of immigrants are refugees and asylees (inland
    refugee claimants in the United States are referred to as “asylum seekers” or
    “asylees”) and other humanitarian categories (ibid.).
    Trends and Issues in
    Selecting Permanent Residents
    The events of September 11, 2001, appear to have had little effect on the Canadian
    government’s selection priorities for new immigrants. The government remains
    committed to its annual numerical targets and to a policy of selecting highly skilled
    and educated applicants.
    In the United States, the post–September 11, 2001, preoccupation with the
    enforcement and security side of immigration policy has delayed a broad
    reevaluation of some of the basic goals and principles of immigrant selection. The
    eventual direction chosen by the United States may determine whether it views
    Canadian selection policy as a critic, competitor or bystander.
    In Canada, between December 2000 and June 2001, the Minister of Citizenship and
    Immigration previewed a comprehensive set of new regulations for implementation
    in late June 2002. These regulations added flesh to the enforcement and selection of
    the bare-boned Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, passed by
    Parliament in fall 2001.
    On immigrant selection, these regulations were designed to maintain the
    current numerical targets while elevating further the eligibility standards and pass
    marks for the skilled worker class. The regulations were criticized by some as
    setting too high a standard of eligibility. They were also attacked for favouring
    university degrees, while assigning little value to skilled-trade programs and
    The events of
    September 11, 2001,
    appear to have had
    little effect on the
    selection priorities for
    new immigrants.
    apprenticeships. A backlash, led by Liberal backbenchers, resulted in modest
    revisions of these criteria by a new immigration minister, Denis Coderre. The
    underlying message did not change: the government was raising its eligibility
    standards. Given the number of apparently qualified applicants queuing up in
    processing backlogs at Canada’s offshore visa offices, the government likely
    concluded that it could raise standards and still meet its numerical targets for
    skilled workers.
    A less controversial aspect of the proposed selection criteria was the removal of
    the requirement that skilled applicants fit into specific occupational niches known
    as preferred occupations. The department conceded that its list of preferred
    occupations, last amended in 1993, had never genuinely reflected actual current
    labour market demands. In addition to questionable labour market research and
    customarily late implementation, the preferred occupation lists were distorted by
    lobbying from protectionist, professional, and labour bodies. The new criteria
    permit consideration of candidates with expertise in most skilled occupations.
    They also favour those who have had postsecondary education or legal
    employment in Canada.
    While the new federal immigrant selection criteria no longer target specific
    occupations, skills-specific recruitment remains a factor in immigrant selection.
    This recruitment has been outsourced to the provinces through a series of
    Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs). Under these arrangements, a province or
    territory chooses its own skilled immigrants based on its own list of priorities. To
    qualify under a PNP, a potential immigrant must intend to reside in the specific
    province. That intention is usually supported by a local job offer, previous sojourns
    in the province or local family ties.
    The list of provincially designated occupations ranges from hog farm managers
    in Manitoba to pipe fitters and petroleum engineers in Alberta and nurses in British
    Columbia. The federal authorities continue to process these immigrant applicants,
    while deferring to the occupational priorities outlined by the destination province.
    Ontario, which receives 60 percent of the country’s annual immigrant intake
    (Canada 2001d, 7), does not yet participate in the Provincial Nominee Program,
    apparently wary of developing a costly parallel immigration program.
    The PNPs offer the prospect of a better geographical distribution of immigrants.
    Currently 50 percent of all immigrants settle in Toronto, while 15 percent go to
    Vancouver, and 13 percent to Montreal (ibid.). A further 16 percent of immigrants
    settle in ten other Canadian cities (Canada 2001h), leaving six percent dispersed
    throughout the rest of Canada. This overwhelming movement to a single city is
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 5
    Figure 1: Immigration Composition, Canada and the United States
    Canada United States
    refugee and humanitarian
    family economic
    6 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    not replicated in the United States, where immigrants are attracted to a broader
    range of large and mid-sized urban areas. To date, the PNPs are in their nascence,
    accounting for one-to-two percent of the national annual immigrant intake. The
    federal government is clearly enamoured of the programs, hoping they will lead
    to a wider distribution of immigrants — and perhaps also transfer more of the
    immigrant selection burden (administrative and financial) to the provinces.
    Quebec operates an entirely separate selection policy for candidates who
    indicate they are destined for that province. The Quebec immigration program
    features its own selection criteria and offshore immigration offices. The Canadian
    government’s role is to perform health and security checks and to confer Canadian
    permanent resident status. Immigration to Quebec accounted for 15 percent of the
    total immigrant flow to Canada in 2001 (Canada 2001d).
    The continued operation of the Quebec program and an expected expansion of
    the PNPs (even without Ontario’s participation) could soon see one-fifth of
    immigrants being selected by the provinces.
    The initial controversy surrounding the minister’s announcement of the new
    federal selection criteria for skilled immigrants had one particularly salutary effect.
    Unlike some of the previous policy shifts accomplished out of the public view
    through departmental policy and cabinet regulation, these changes sparked a
    public debate over the goals and expectations of the country’s immigrant-selection
    process. Many Canadians who had previously identified immigration policy
    exclusively with family reunification, refugees or security issues, received an
    insight into the pragmatic economic objectives that underlie current Canadian
    policy. Throughout this debate, there appeared to be little evidence that Canadians
    were seeking to reverse the trend toward establishing a strong skills component
    into the selection system. Rather, much of the discussion focused on the appropriate
    levels and balance of skills and attributes that should define economic immigrants.
    In the United States, the reorganization, upgrading, and rationalizing of
    protection and enforcement agencies and procedures under the banner of homeland
    security have dominated the immigration agenda. A mammoth Department of
    Homeland Security is in the works. It will absorb a multiplicity of enforcement
    agencies, including much of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).6
    Prevention, not selection, remains the current focus of the US government’s
    immigration agenda. Hence, a long overdue public debate about the objectives of
    the US immigrant selection process remains on hold.
    Some US policy critics have drawn a connection between homeland security
    and continued high levels of legal immigration. One school of thought, advanced
    by the Center for Immigration Studies, a US immigration policy think tank and
    general proponent of a more restrictive immigration policy, proposes a pause or
    moratorium on the legal admission of new immigrants (Krikorian 2002). This, the
    Center argues, would permit the US government and its agencies to catch up with
    6 See
    Prevention, not
    selection, remains the
    current focus of the
    US government’s
    immigration agenda.
    immigrant processing backlogs, make inroads into the illegal migrant community,
    and implement the new security mechanisms introduced since September 11, 2001.
    A policy of substantially cutting back on legal immigration may not currently
    represent the mainstream view of either the White House or Congress. However, it
    has been adopted by some credible legislators, such as Congressman George Gekas,
    chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
    In June 2002, Gekas introduced an immigration bill that would reduce legal
    immigration by 20 percent. This would be accomplished by such measures as
    eliminating the diversity visa program (known as the visa “lottery”) and removing
    the right to sponsor some family members.7 This stance, previously viewed by many
    as extreme, has gained some currency within Congress. It is certainly conceivable
    that any further serious terrorist threats to the US mainland — or even a bout of
    higher domestic unemployment — could increase the support for this more
    restrictive approach.
    The prospect of any future US moratorium or slowdown on legal immigration
    raises the question of whether the United States would expect Canada to show
    similar restraint. This would have serious implications for Canadian economic
    policymakers who have made immigrant selection a key part of their long-term
    economic planning.
    On the other side of the policy spectrum, the prospect of a secure and
    economically expanding United States poses a different kind of challenge to
    Canadian policy. Some US observers have urged the adoption of a Canadian-style
    selection system.8 Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are currently
    recruiting skilled migrants. Other western European countries such as Germany
    are making their own preliminary and limited forays into the skilled migrant field.
    If the United States were to jump onto the bandwagon, an aggressive, skillsoriented US immigrant recruitment policy would provide stiff competition for
    Canada. For evidence of the lure of the United States, the Canadian government and
    business community need only recall their concerns over losing Canada’s high-tech
    workforce to Silicon Valley during the dot-com boom.
    Moving away from a family-based to a high-skills-based program could be
    popular with some US critics and legislators. It would likely be less popular with
    politicians representing regions with large new immigrant communities comprised
    of lower-skilled and less-educated newcomers. In particular, it may run against the
    hopes of the current administration to expand its influence among new Latin
    American constituents.
    Canada achieved much of its shift to a skills-based selection system in a
    depoliticized setting. Apart from the minister, parliamentarians had little role in —
    or perhaps chose to ignore — a series of upgrades in the points system applied to
    skilled workers throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. Cabinet endorsed these
    changes by approving a series of regulatory changes.
    A similar policy shift in the United States would almost certainly be run
    through a vigorous legislative and political gauntlet. For many, the abandonment
    of the United States’ family-based program in favour of a Canadian-style “designer
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 7
    7 “Gekas Announces Restrictionist Immigration Bill,” AILA InfoNet, Doc. No. 02062731 (June 27, 2002).
    8 For an example of a US critic’s support of a Canadian model selection system, see Borjas (2001).
    Canada achieved
    much of its shift to a
    skills-based selection
    system in a
    depoliticized setting.
    immigrant” program would offend the seminal frontier image of “huddled
    masses” embraced by Lady Liberty. Others would argue that the Canadian
    immigrant model would not be suited to the United States. They may have a point.
    One argument is that the recent prolonged US economic boom was fuelled as
    much by an influx of both legal and illegal lower-skilled and lower-paid workers
    as by the increased numbers of foreign professional and high-tech workers. Foreignborn workers accounted for nearly half of the net increase in the US labour force
    between 1996 and 2000. Labor Department statistics show that foreign-born workers
    were paid 75 cents for every dollar earned by a US-born worker (Mosisa 2002).
    This may have accounted for the US economy’s ability to create jobs without
    causing wage-led inflation.9 It has also led to criticism that the US expanded its
    First-World economy with Third-World wages. This criticism is tolerated by those
    who assume that early hardships are a necessary but transitory phase in the US
    immigrant’s traditional climb to prosperity.
    If US policy can be accused of admitting an overworked, undereducated
    immigrant underclass, the Canadian system has been cited for producing an
    overeducated and underemployed newcomer class. Blame is often directed at
    Canadian professional licensing bodies’ unwillingness to recognize or evaluate
    foreign training and degrees. Criticism is also directed at risk-averse Canadian
    employers who shy away from hiring candidates with “lack of local market
    experience.” Thus, the concern remains that, as the Canadian government continues
    to ratchet up the eligibility criteria, without accompanying regard for employment
    mobility, Canada’s immigrants will be underutilized in the workforce.
    Temporary Entrants: Foreign Worker Policies
    The Numbers
    Both Canada and the United States have developed temporary foreign worker
    programs that address some of their immediate skills gaps and knowledge needs.
    The number of foreign workers admitted to Canada in 2000 was over 89,000 or
    0.03 percent of Canada’s total population (Canada 2001e, 4). Work permits are issued
    on a number of different grounds and are generated in response to employer requests.
    Eligible recipients of work permits include those providing a skill in short supply,
    those with specialized product knowledge, senior employees transferred by their
    companies, and a host of others.
    The number of temporary foreign workers admitted to the United States in 2000
    was 1,234,000, approximately 0.04 percent of the total population, with criteria for
    granting work permits similar to those used in Canada.
    8 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    9 For a discussion of this view, see McAuley (2002).
    If US policy can be
    accused of admitting
    an overworked,
    underclass, the
    Canadian system has
    been cited for
    producing an
    overeducated and
    newcomer class.
    The Canadian Model
    Amid the recent debate over Canada’s new immigrant selection criteria, less
    attention has been paid to the significant and innovative changes being made to its
    foreign worker policy.
    Canada and the United States are among a small group of countries that
    welcome new permanent settlers to their midst. They are, however, also among
    many countries that have relied on the temporary admission of foreign workers to
    fill specific skills needs. Western European countries have admitted labourers from
    Turkey and North Africa, while the Gulf states host a vast foreign worker population,
    primarily from Pakistan, India, and the Middle East, that equals or exceeds its
    domestic work force. Singapore imports technology workers from China and India;
    Israel is home to Asian construction workers.
    In most of the world, foreign workers typically remain “foreign.” They enter the
    country on a temporary and specific work assignment with a local employer and
    they are expected to leave the country on completion of their term of employment.
    Foreign workers, even those who may have spent decades in a host country and
    who may have had children born there, can rarely expect citizenship for themselves
    or their families. By contrast, Canada has been both generous and pragmatic in
    permitting longer-term legal foreign workers to become permanent residents and,
    ultimately, citizens.
    Canada has benefited from foreign workers since the days when Chinese
    labourers were imported to build the transcontinental railroad. In the past few
    decades, the Canadian government‘s policy was to approve the hiring of foreign
    workers subject to a “Canadians first” policy. This policy almost always required a
    Canadian employer to first canvass the domestic market. Today, that test has been
    largely replaced by a broader set of criteria that recognizes a greater range of
    benefits that may be derived from hiring a foreign worker.
    At the low end of the skills spectrum are several seasonal programs directed at
    agricultural workers who typically leave Canada at the end of a harvesting season.
    The Live-in-Caregiver Program accommodates individually contracted, taxpaying and benefits-eligible caregivers. They are required to spend at least two full
    years as caregivers in Canadian homes, after which they can apply for permanent
    resident status in Canada. The program has alternately filled a child care deficit
    and, more recently, a home care shortage. A secondary benefit of the program has
    been the tendency of many caregivers upon immigration to gravitate to caregiving
    positions in hospitals, nursing homes and seniors’ residences on immigration.
    The Canadian caregiver program compares favourably with experience in the
    United States, where these types of domestic positions are often staffed by illegal
    workers who have little hope of regularizing their status.
    In the late 1990s, Canada initiated an innovative program to attract foreign
    technology workers. The Software Developers Program (still in force as the
    Information Technology Workers Program) facilitated the entry of qualified and
    well-paid software developers from around the world. The Canadian program was
    well under way while the United States was debating whether to raise its quota on
    professional workers and while western European nations, such as Germany, were
    agonizing over the appropriateness of admitting foreigners for this purpose.
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 9
    Canada has been both
    generous and
    pragmatic in
    permitting longerterm legal foreign
    workers to become
    permanent residents
    and, ultimately,
    One of the advantages of a foreign worker movement is that employees go
    where they are needed — and stay there, at least until they get permanent-resident
    status and their guaranteed mobility rights under the Charter of Rights and
    Freedoms. These programs can alleviate specific regional labour needs and reduce
    the movement of new immigrants to Canada’s three largest cities. In a federalprovincial meeting on immigration issues held in Winnipeg on October 15 and 16,
    2002, federal Immigration Minister Denis Coderre formally recommended a program
    to expand the use of temporary foreign workers in areas of the country less
    favoured by new immigrants. The Minister suggested that foreign workers
    employed legally for five years under such a program would be immediately
    eligible for permanent-resident status (Canada 2002c).
    In recent months, the Canadian government has indicated its willingness to
    negotiate a much wider range of foreign worker arrangements with specific
    employers and industries, at both the national and regional levels. An example of
    an industry-specific and regionally targeted policy is the Construction Workers
    Program, which the government negotiated at the end of 1999 with the Greater
    Toronto Homebuilders Association. The program addresses the critical shortages of
    certain building trades. It facilitates the hiring of a specified number of experienced
    construction workers in five different skills areas on a year-to-year basis. The
    agreement was secured with the consent of various construction unions and
    features local wage and working standards. Foreign bricklayers and carpenters,
    receiving the same $25 (minimum) per hour as their local counterparts do not
    threaten to undercut local rates of remuneration.
    Company-specific agreements include permitting a new Manitoba meatpacking
    plant to hire 40-to-50 foreign meatcutters and allowing a chain of ski resorts to hire
    a contingent of seasonal workers.
    The federal government recently institutionalized a program that specifically
    addresses lower skill shortages, setting criteria and parameters for employer
    requests for temporary foreign workers on the basis that they are taxpayers.10
    Other changes in immigration regulations have provided additional incentives
    to attract skilled foreign workers. These include permitting their spouses (married,
    common-law and same-sex) to obtain work permits, while exempting their
    primary and secondary school-aged children from the student permit requirement.
    The provinces do their part by extending national health care coverage to most
    legal foreign workers.
    A further attraction of filling labour needs with foreign workers is that the
    government approval process is much quicker and simpler than the lengthy one
    for permanent resident approval. Foreign workers are usually processed in weeks
    or months, while processing of permanent resident applications is measured in
    years. This enables Canadian employers to have the services of the workers when
    they are needed.
    10 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    10 Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources Development Canada announced a
    Low-Skilled Temporary Worker Program in September 2002.
    The Canadian
    government has
    indicated its
    willingness to
    negotiate a much
    wider range of
    foreign worker
    arrangements with
    specific employers
    and industries.
    The US Model
    Programs to accommodate various levels of skilled workers also exist in the United
    States. An “Americans first” labour market preference test (labour certification) is
    required for lower-skilled foreign workers. Professional and specialty workers face
    a less onerous test than lower-skilled workers or than their counterparts in Canada.
    Unlike in Canada, however, in the United States most professionals are subject to
    an annual numerical cap, which takes some time and political effort to adjust when
    urgent skills shortages occur — as was the case during the dot-com boom. As in
    Canada, these foreign workers can, with employer sponsorship, convert their status
    to permanent residence.
    The United States has shown itself to be less beholden than Canada to the
    inhibiting influence of local professional associations. It has made ample use of
    foreign medical doctors and specialists in underserviced areas, while Canadian
    authorities have only recently begun to dismantle roadblocks erected by the
    Canadian medical establishment. The United States has been admitting a steady flow
    of foreign nurses to alleviate domestic shortages, while Canadian provincial nursing
    bodies have thrown red tape around the process of accrediting foreign nurses.
    The United States has also readily accepted a wide range of postgraduate
    researchers, fellows and academics, who augment the country’s research and
    development capabilities. Traditionally protectionist Canadian academic institutions,
    facing a shortage of professors and researchers, have now also started hiring abroad.
    There are fewer legal avenues in the United States than in Canada through
    which employers can hire lower-skilled foreign workers. The programs that do
    exist are administratively cumbersome and of limited application. That may be
    part of the reason that the United States has come to rely on a lower-skilled foreign
    work force, which is predominantly comprised of illegal migrants. This could change.
    The US labour movement, seeing opportunities to bring large numbers of new
    workers under its umbrella, has reversed its traditional objection to an amnesty for
    illegal immigrants (see Briggs 2001). Meanwhile, the Mexican administration and a
    Hispanic-friendly White House have been discussing a possible amnesty for the
    large number of Mexican nationals within the US illegal population. The events of
    September 11, 2001, also have had an impact on this discussion. The heightened
    concerns about security after the terrorist attacks have led some critics to amplify
    their calls to identify and deport “illegals.” Others have concluded that it is more
    urgent than ever to identify and regularize the working illegals through an amnesty
    in order to bring them into the mainstream of US society and the economy.
    Temporary Workers in Canada:
    Upgrading Security and Downloading Costs
    The growing numbers of foreign workers in Canada, both skilled and less skilled,
    arrive at a cost. Currently, criminal and security screening of temporary workers at
    offshore Canadian visa offices is almost nonexistent. Unlike permanent resident
    applicants, foreign workers and international students are not required to provide
    police clearances from every jurisdiction in which they have resided as adults nor
    are they likely to be referred to security checks by Canadian intelligence agencies.
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 11
    The United States
    has shown itself to be
    less beholden than
    Canada to the
    inhibiting influence
    of local professional
    There is little or no evidence to date that foreign workers, whether they are
    software developers or caregivers, pose a threat to Canadian society. Nevertheless,
    prudence in a post–September 11, 2001, world demands a more complete security
    profile of applicants, many of whom seek admission to the Canadian labour
    market for a period of years. Efforts to heighten security for these applicants will
    represent an ambitious undertaking given that speed is of the essence in uniting
    prospective employees with their Canadian employers.
    The ability to maintain speed in processing while adding additional layers of
    security will require more staff and technology. It is appropriate that the private
    sector, the immediate beneficiary of this skills movement, assume at least part of
    the additional financial burden.
    Another challenge of administering a temporary worker program is to ensure
    that its participants depart when their work permits expire. While some temporary
    workers, such as live-in caregivers, have a specific route to permanent residence,
    most temporary workers are expected to return to their home countries on
    completion of their Canadian work assignments.
    In the absence of any exit-control system, immigration officials have little chance
    to follow up with individuals who have left their authorized employers or who have
    stayed beyond their allowed time in the country. Here, too, sponsoring employers
    should share a greater responsibility in advising immigration authorities if, when
    and why a foreign worker has left their employ or has otherwise contravened terms
    of entry. While employers already bear this obligation legally, in the absence of
    fraud or misrepresentation the failure to discharge this responsibility rarely carries
    punitive consequences.
    A greater onus must be placed on employers to ensure their temporary foreign
    workers comply with visa requirements. This will become even more important in
    light of the federal government’s intention to expand the role of temporary foreign
    workers in the Canadian economy.
    In both Canada and the United States, refugees and refugee policy have received
    considerable attention in the security-conscious world since September 11, 2001.
    Both nations base their acceptance and treatment of refugees on principles
    outlined in international conventions and protocols to which they are signatories.
    Refugees are individuals offered protection due to their well-founded fear of
    persecution in their home countries for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political
    opinion or membership in a social group. Refugee claimants are people who have
    made a claim for protection that has not yet been decided.
    Canada and the United States derive a portion of their refugee intake from
    United Nations-designated migrants abroad and from claims made by those who
    have already reached North America.
    Through an expanding body of case law, both countries have seen a steady
    widening of the legal definition of a refugee, including broader interpretation of
    concepts of persecution, state protection, political opinion and religious belief.
    Critics in both countries maintain that the definitions have been stretched to the
    12 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    A greater onus must
    be placed on
    employers to ensure
    their temporary
    foreign workers
    comply with visa
    point of becoming meaningless and that the lines between the persecuted and the
    economically motivated have become hopelessly blurred. Defenders of the system
    contend that the current interpretations reflect the realities of complex modern
    global politics, with its varying and often subtle forms of oppression and persecution.
    A recurring theme of criticism (see, for example, Collacott 2001) of Canadian
    refugee policy suggests that Canadian refugee tribunals are a softer touch than
    their US counterparts, with a higher rate of acceptance of refugee claims. The
    Canadian government says the acceptance rates are almost identical.11 These types
    of comparisons are meaningless without a similar statistical base and without a
    profile of the backgrounds and origins of the refugee claimants arriving in the two
    Both Canada and the United States have multi-tiered adjudication processes for
    inland refugee claimants which are typically slow and cumbersome. The question
    of Canada’s ability to track refugee claimants during the claims process has been a
    source of controversy within Canada and an issue between US and Canadian
    authorities. Although the United States has been critical of Canada for allowing its
    refugee claimants to slip over the US border, the Canadian government maintains
    that the majority of refugee claimants in Canada arrived through the United States.12
    These arguments should become moot with the signing of the “safe third country”
    agreement discussed below.
    Canadian law permits interim detention of refugee claimants who are considered
    possible threats to the public or flight risks. However, lack of intelligence to identify
    high-risk claimants and a lack of detention facilities have limited the number of
    detention orders. Humanitarian considerations have also played a role, particularly
    in the face of potentially lengthy incarceration of children.
    Prior to September 11, 2001, typical refugee claimants were interviewed for half
    an hour, fingerprinted, had their photograph taken and released with instructions to
    return when contacted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. A security
    clearance was sought only if it was determined that the claimant was a genuine
    refugee, which could be several years after arrival.
    Prior to the terrorist attacks in the United States, Washington was concerned
    that untracked refugee claimants in Canada were slipping into US labour markets.
    Now, the concern is that they may be threats to security. The case of Ahmed Ressam
    demonstrated for US authorities the flaws in the Canadian refugee system. Ressam
    arrived in Canada in 1995 on a false passport, made a refugee claim, then abandoned
    it and was ordered deported. He purchased a valid Canadian passport under a
    false name and lived undisturbed in Montreal until December 1999, when he
    attempted to enter the United States with a car full of explosives. He was convicted
    in 2001 of attempting to blow up the Los Angeles airport. Ressam’s story raises a
    broader range of questions than the refugee issue, including concerns about Canada’s
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 13
    11 In 2001, then Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan said that Canada accepts 57 percent of all
    refugee claimants while the United States accepts 53 percent (reported in the Toronto Star,
    December 5, 2001).
    12 On April 30, 2002, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley told the House of Commons that 72 percent
    of refugee claimants who had arrived in Canada so far this year had come through the United
    States and that in 2001, 60 percent had done so (Globe and Mail [Toronto], May 1, 2002, p. A1).
    The case of Ahmed
    Ressam demonstrated
    for US authorities
    the flaws in the
    Canadian refugee
    ability to keep track of people subject to enforcement, execute removal orders and
    appropriately secure its passport procedures.
    Refugee Policy: The New Reality
    Since September 11, 2001, neither the United States nor Canada has indicated any
    intention to renege on any treaty or domestic commitments to accept genuine
    refugees. Both countries have, however, moved to tighten admission procedures
    and supervision of refugee claimants.
    In July 2002, in an effort to minimize “asylum shopping,” the two countries
    announced a draft “safe third-country agreement.” Under the proposed accord,
    refugee and asylum claimants arriving from either side of the border would be
    returned to that country to pursue their claims. This would limit access of asylum
    seekers to the refugee-determination system of the country in which they arrived
    first (United States 2002c).
    On the issue of detention, Canada has signalled its preparedness to seek interim
    detention of refugee claimants, particularly those whose documentation and identity
    are in question. Prior to September 11, 2001, detentions were rare, though not unheard
    of. In September 1999, for example, Canadian immigration officials successfully
    secured the detention of refugee claimants from the Chinese province of Fujian
    who arrived on the coast of British Columbia. These detentions were secured on
    the basis that the migrants were perceived to be flight risks, rather than security
    In October 2001, Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed plans to conduct
    more thorough front-end screening of refugee claimants and increase the use of
    detention for security reasons. It is expected that this will result in more detentions
    for longer periods.
    Canada and the United States have promised to share information and intelligence
    on refugee claimants and any individuals and organizations designated as
    engaging in terrorist activities (Canada 2001c). In addition, both governments have
    implemented serious new penalties to combat people smuggling. In Canada, a
    smuggler now faces life imprisonment and a fine of $1 million.
    The enforcement provisions of Canada’s new Immigration and Refugee Protection
    Act clarify and strengthen the government’s ability to detain flight risks, deny
    refugee protection to terrorists and permit the expulsion of terrorists, security risks
    and war criminals. All of these new measures will be meaningless, however, in the
    absence of competent intelligence to identify potential wrongdoers. In a move to
    address this problem, Ottawa has approved the establishment of specialized teams
    with appropriate expertise to administer security screening of refugee claimants on
    their entry to Canada.
    The importance of being able to determine the identity and origin of all foreign
    arrivals in North America is critical for security purposes. Before condemning all
    migrants who bear false identification, however, it should be understood that
    refugees fleeing persecution often have to resort to false documents to be allowed
    to leave their homeland.
    With the advent of more front-end scrutiny and the greater likelihood of
    detention, arrival as a refugee claimant, particularly an undocumented one, has
    14 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    become a challenging way to enter Canada — so challenging that one wonders
    whether sophisticated wrongdoers will submit to this level of scrutiny. It is worth
    noting that had Ressam gone “underground” as an overstaying visitor, he would
    have received even less attention from Canadian authorities than he did as a
    documented former refugee claimant. Entry as a visitor will offer a path of less
    resistance for a potential terrorist.
    Visitors: The Path of Less Resistance
    The modus operandi of the 9/11 terrorists suggests they understood that the weakest
    link in North American border security lay in the admission and monitoring of
    tourists, international students, business people and other temporary entrants.
    Entry into either country as a refugee or asylee involves interviews, fingerprints,
    photographs, hearings, background checks and possible lengthy detention. The
    applicant being processed for permanent-resident status through a Canadian visa
    office abroad must wait between one and seven years for paper screening, medicals
    and security and criminal record checks to be completed before arriving in Canada.
    Similar waits face the applicant for a US green card. It is becoming less likely that
    future terrorists will subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny and delay, particularly
    when there are easier options for entry.
    For those who require visitor visas, the average designated time for a consular
    officer to examine and assess an application can be measured in minutes; the average
    interview with a visa-exempt traveler arriving at a Canadian or US airport or land
    crossing can be measured in seconds.
    In 2000, Canada admitted more than 4.4 million non-US visitors. Canada’s total
    non-US visitor intake is about 20 times greater than its annual intake of permanent
    residents and roughly 100 times greater than the annual number of refugee claimants.
    The annual number of legally admitted visitors to the United States is about
    30.5 million, excluding Canadians and Mexicans. This figure represents more than
    30 times the combined number of new permanent residents and refugee or asylum
    The Canadian and US economies, particularly the hospitality, transportation
    and leisure sectors, are highly dependent on the liberal flow of international business
    travelers and tourists. Similarly, the North American education sector has become
    increasingly dependent on the high tuition fees paid by 660,000 international
    students entering the United States annually (United States 2000b) and the 64,000
    foreign students entering Canada (Canada 2000).
    To gain admission to the United States, nationals of most countries require
    formal visitor visas issued by US consular posts abroad. The balance, usually
    citizens of industrialized countries, can simply board an aircraft and present
    themselves at an airport immigration counter. Canada also requires nationals of
    most countries to obtain formal visitor visas, but its list of visa-exempted countries
    is somewhat lengthier than that of its US counterpart, reflecting primarily the
    addition of a number of small Commonwealth jurisdictions. (See Box 1.)
    The INS has complained that individuals who need visas to enter the United
    States but are visa exempt in Canada have used Canadian admission to slip
    surreptitiously into the US underground labour force. South Koreans have been an
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 15
    Entry as a visitor
    will offer a path of
    less resistance for a
    potential terrorist.
    16 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    Box 1: Countries for Which Visas are Waived
    United States
    Country (Visa Waiver Program)
    Antigua and Barbuda 
    Costa Rica 
    Israel (National Passport holders only)
    New Zealand  
    Papua-New Guinea 
    San Marino  
    Solomon Islands 
    South Korea 
    St. Kitts and Nevis 
    St. Lucia 
    St. Vincent 
    United States  (not applicable)
    United Kingdom 
    Western Samoa  
    Sources: United States, Department of State website,; Citizenship and Immigration
    Canada website,
    The US Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows
    citizens of 29 countries to enter the United
    States without a formal visitor visa;
    Canadian citizens do not require a passport
    to enter and therefore are not on this list.
    Canada waives visitor visa (now called the
    Temporary Entry Visa) requirements for
    citizens of 46 countries. In addition, visas are
    unnecessary for the following categories of
    • Those people lawfully admitted to the
    United States for permanent residence
    who are in possession of their alien
    registration card (green card) or can
    provide other evidence of permanent
    • British citizens and British Overseas
    Citizens who are re-admissible to the
    United Kingdom.
    • Citizens of British dependent territories,
    who derive their citizenship through
    birth, descent, registration, or
    naturalization in one of the British
    dependent territories of Anguilla,
    Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman
    Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar,
    Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena or Turks
    and Caicos Islands.
    • People holding a valid and subsisting
    Special Administrative Region passport
    issued by the Government of the Hong
    Kong Special Administrative Region of
    the People’s Republic of China.
    • People holding passports or travel
    documents issued by the Holy See.
    ongoing issue in this regard. In the terrorist-attacks climate, however, it is security
    rather than unauthorized employment that has become the primary concern —
    hence the recent US discussions with Ottawa about harmonizing visitor visa policy
    for Saudis. Saudi Arabia has traditionally provided a modest flow of affluent and
    law-abiding travelers and students to Canada. Although the United States requires
    visitor visas of Saudi citizens, until recently Canada did not.
    Nevertheless, the recent Canadian decision to proceed with a visa requirement
    for Saudis should not have been a difficult one for Canada. Quite apart from the
    US interest in this issue, the prevalence of Saudi passports among the terrorists
    should be regarded as a security concern for any western nation. Furthermore,
    Saudi Arabia has a long-standing visitor visa requirement for Canadians, which,
    according to diplomatic custom, calls for reciprocal treatment.
    Apparently under US pressure, the Canadian government also recently
    imposed visitor visas on citizens of Malaysia. The rationale for Malaysian citizens
    is nominally related to that country’s passport’s apparent vulnerability to abuse,
    but it is almost certainly also connected to concerns about the activities of Islamic
    militant organizations in Malaysia. If such fears are well-founded, then the
    revocation of the visa exemption would appear to be justified on grounds of
    national interest.
    For its part, Canada receives a portion of its illegal migrants and a significant
    portion of its refugee claimants through the crossborder migration of nationals
    who enjoy visa-free visitor access to the United States, but not to Canada. Until the
    recent collapse of their economy, Argentines were among that group, with many
    migrating to Canada from the United States and making refugee claims.13
    Rethinking Visitor Admissions
    Since September 11, 2001, the definition of a “good risk” for the purpose of issuance
    of a visitor or student visa to Canada or the United States has changed dramatically.
    The suitability of potential visitors previously focused on the likelihood of their
    returning home on completion of their Canadian or US stay. Affluent, educated
    and gainfully employed applicants with jobs and families to go home to have fit
    the classic low-risk profile. At first blush, the September 11 terrorists did fit this
    profile and each was apparently granted initial legal entry to visit or study in the
    United States.14
    In the wake of the airliner attacks, US officials raised the level of scrutiny of
    visitors. Politics and ethnicity have become significant components of the new
    security-inspired visitor profile. Detection measures now include high-tech
    examination of passports and visas, profiling individuals from certain countries
    and obtaining passenger names from airlines. In addition, to permit more breathing
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 17
    13 The number of refugee claims in Canada by Argentines rose from 79 in 1998 to 1,111 in 2000,
    raising it from the 44th largest source country for refugee claimants in 1998 to the sixth largest in
    2000 (Canada 2000).
    14 It has recently been revealed that 15 of the 19 terrorists were granted visitor visas based on dubious
    and incomplete information provided in their visa applications. US embassy officials appeared to
    have ignored existing visa issuance criteria in granting these visas. (See Mowbray 2002.)
    room for its consular officers, the United States has recently issued new time
    standards that have resulted in delaying temporary visa issuance to nationals of a
    specified list of countries.15 New regulations, some of which are mandated by the
    USA Patriot Act,
    16 call for the urgent development of fraud-resistant documents
    and biometrics identification and tracking technology.
    In the United States, a great deal of attention has been directed recently at the
    inability of immigration authorities to effectively monitor visitor visa compliance.
    The INS has admitted that it has not had the resources or systems effectively to keep
    track of legally admitted students who may have quit their schooling or visitors
    who have overstayed. There are 74,000 US educational institutions approved for
    student visa issuance, ranging from Ivy League universities to beauty schools and
    dance academies. A recent spot check of visa-approved schools within a radius of
    the Chicago INS office revealed that, out of 30 institutes, only four were in existence
    and only one was at the address listed by the INS (Becker and Gibson 2002).
    Previous attempts at seeking the cooperation of US educational institutions in
    monitoring international students were effectively derailed by the universities
    themselves (Grimaldi 2002). Now, educational institutions will be expected to
    assume a role in tracking their students. The White House has mandated that an
    automated foreign-student tracking system, first proposed in 1996 as a pilot program,
    will proceed as a full program in 2003 (United States 2002b).
    On the issue of visitors, the US administration has signalled the urgency of
    developing a comprehensive entry- and exit-tracking system to be integrated with
    the databases of other law enforcement agencies. The test phase of the national
    security entry-exit registration system was implemented in September 2002 at
    selected ports of entry and targets nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria.
    Visitors from these countries have their fingerprints taken and matched to a
    database of known terrorists. They are required to confirm periodically where they
    are living and what they are doing, as well as to confirm their exit from the
    country. Once fully developed, the comprehensive entry-exit system will apply to
    nearly all foreign visitors.17
    In Canada, there appears to be no progress to date on developing an entry-exit
    monitoring system for temporary entrants. Once past the post at a Canadian port
    of entry, a visitor is basically off the radar screen for tracking purposes. There is no
    record of the length of stay or of any departure from the country.
    Compared to the US initiatives, Canada’s independent moves to screen visitors
    have been modest, consisting of:
    • temporarily redeploying federal police officers to “national security duties”;
    hiring new staff for ports of entry;
    • upgrading technology and training;
    • improving coordination among law enforcement agencies;
    18 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    15 These are the countries that the US Department of State regards as sponsors of terrorism — namely,
    North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya (see
    16 Pub. L. No:107-56, 115 Stat. 272, originally introduced as The Unity and Strengthening of America by
    Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001.
    17 See “AG Announces Partial Implementation of Special Alien Registration Program,” AILA
    InfoNet, Doc. No. 02081370 (August 13, 2002).
    Now, educational
    institutions will be
    expected to assume a
    role in tracking their
    • increasing the number of Immigration Control Officers posted overseas.
    Canada has also recently required its visa offices to defer temporary applicants
    from certain designated countries for several days of additional scrutiny.
    There have been no significant staff increases in overseas visa offices to help
    assess visitor visa applications, however, nor are there any plans to improve
    monitoring of visa compliance. The latter is a significant omission given
    Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s admission that between July 2001 and
    February 2002 it had lost track of 118 Tunisians who entered Canada as foreign
    students, but who had effectively vanished.
    Canadian educational institutions are the principal beneficiaries of the growing
    foreign student movement. Like their counterparts among Canadian employers,
    they should be expected to take a larger role in matters of visa costs and
    compliance. Secondary schools, English-as-a-second-language courses, trade
    schools, colleges and universities can attract foreign student tuition of up to
    $20,000 per academic year. For its part, Ottawa charges $100 to process a student
    permit. A more realistic fee, perhaps in the range of $500, would cover a greater
    share of the costs of assessing a student visa applicant, including enhanced
    security screening.
    The lack of movement on visitor security issues, particularly on tracking,
    suggests that these are not priority concerns of the Canadian government.
    Alternatively, it may mean that Canada is allowing the United States to carry the
    ball in developing and funding new monitoring systems and technologies. Once
    that country has a system up and running, it will certainly expect immediate
    Canadian participation. The time for Canada to have input into this process is now.
    Canadian-US Cooperation:
    The Perimeter and Beyond
    The Perimeter
    September 11, 2001, shook the confidence of US residents in their border security
    and drew particular attention to their northern frontier. US public opinion
    demanded — and the US government delivered — a higher level of resources to
    the Canadian border, including a temporary contingent of the National Guard and
    a pledge to hire additional border officers. These security upgrades, while
    undoubtedly providing a higher comfort level to US citizens, need to be put into
    appropriate context.
    Nine thousand INS Border Patrol agents are assigned to the Mexican border
    (United States 2000a), which remains the chief entry point of illegal migrants into
    the United States. By contrast in October 2001, just 334 INS Border Patrol agents
    were monitoring the 8,900 km border with Canada (Ziglar 2001). The provision of
    additional human and technological resources recently approved by Congress for
    the US-Canadian frontier offers additional comfort. Realistically, however, the low
    US success rate in enforcing the much shorter and more heavily guarded Mexican
    border carries an obvious message: no wall can be built through 8,900 km of
    mountains, forests, lakes, and bifurcated border communities.
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 19
    US attempts to tackle border security alone would seriously bureaucratize the
    border, upset crossborder commerce in both directions and create a trade nightmare
    for Canada. These efforts would not, however, come close to sealing the border.
    Once present in Canada, a determined wrongdoer could continue to find his way
    south somewhere along this very long frontier. This view was apparently shared
    by two INS agents who informed the media in autumn 2001 that Michigan’s
    almost 1,300 kms of border with Canada was guarded by only 28 field agents, one
    working boat, several damaged electronic sensors and one broken remote camera.
    Given Washington’s allocation of new resources to the northern border, these
    agents should now be less lonely and somewhat better equipped. They are still
    very far from being in a position to turn the United States into a gated community.
    The pursuit of a unilateral border protection strategy is not a viable security or
    trade option for either the United States or Canada. In recognition of this reality,
    both countries have accepted the need to cooperate and coordinate their approaches
    to securing their borders.
    While Canada has been passive in the development of its own initiatives to
    monitor visitors in the country, it has been much more active on border security
    matters, where it has proposed a series of cooperative measures to US officials
    (Canada 2001b). These include the sharing of information between the two
    countries and the development and use of more sophisticated technology, such as
    “smart” identity cards and biometric identification.
    Both countries have pledged to implement tougher investigative and detention
    powers as well as more streamlined expulsion processes. The wider use of existing
    powers is coupled with the expanded enforcement powers offered by the USA
    Patriot Act and Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Both countries have
    also agreed to discuss the merits of a common, or at least a similar, list of visitor
    visa-exempt countries. Ottawa views this as a concession, since it has regarded
    visitor-visa policy as a sovereignty issue. For its part, Canada has been able to
    exact commitments from the US administration to keep goods and services flowing
    smoothly over the border. Many joint initiatives are proceeding in this area under
    the “smart border” heading.
    The United States and Canada have proposed a number of initiatives in joint
    staffing, patrolling and policing the frontier. These were enumerated in the jointly
    issued December 2001 Smart Border Declaration18 progress report with its 30-point
    plan to improve border security and elaborated on in a September 11, 2002, Smart
    Border progress report (United States 2000e). The declaration addresses initiatives
    in the areas of the secure flow of people, goods and information, as well as sharing
    the development of secure shared infrastructure.
    Other recently announced security initiatives include permission granted to US
    customs officers to be on hand at Canadian ports to assist in the screening of cargo
    destined for the United States. Canadian customs officers will be offered the same
    role at US ports (Canada 2002c). Five new integrated crossborder teams have been
    established as intelligence-led units, made up of a multidisciplinary force of customs,
    police, and immigration officials from both sides of the border. These officials will
    20 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    18 Available at website:
    The pursuit of a
    unilateral border
    protection strategy is
    not a viable security
    or trade option for
    either the United
    States or Canada.
    cooperate with other enforcement agencies from the various levels of government.
    The teams will target crossborder criminal activity, including illegal migration.
    This cooperative spirit between the two North American neighbours is not
    exclusively a product of the events of September 11, 2001; rather, the terrorist
    attacks accelerated a process that had been under way for some years. A
    confidential Canadian government memorandum of March 8, 2000, summarizes
    discussions that had taken place with the United States since the late 1990s.19 It
    enumerates many of the joint security measures contained in the post–attack Smart
    Border declarations, including joint investigations and operations, intelligence
    sharing, coordination of visas, asylum and removals issues and front-end refugee
    screening. The memorandum even referred to $354 million in expected funding
    between 1999 and 2003 on these and other initiatives.
    The Canadian government has acknowledged discussions with the United
    States about a “joint regional approach” to immigration as part of a “Border Vision
    Process” initiated in 1997 (Canada 2002d). The discussions have centred on
    enhanced cooperation and harmonization of various border policies.
    The concept of the much-heralded Permanent Resident Card, which now
    replaces the easily copied Record of Landing document, had also been discussed
    for 15 years with a pilot project actually resulting in the production of some cards
    in the mid-1980s.
    Canada’s proximity to the United States creates unique security challenges and
    responsibilities. Cooperation in the protection of the continent’s borders is more
    than a Canadian concession to its trade interests; it is also in Canada’s own
    security interest. Security against terrorism depends on being a party to reliable
    intelligence and to the use of leading-edge technology and comprehensive air,
    land, and sea surveillance. Canada simply is not in a position to ignore US
    leadership and resources in any of these areas, nor should it be.
    Most countries will find it in their interest to enhance the security of their
    borders. Moreover, these countries increasingly will rely on each other’s
    intelligence and policing skills to achieve these goals. Global security will be
    pursued through a high level of international cooperation and interdependence.
    Countries will owe each other a higher standard of care in monitoring the safe
    movement of people. To this end, they will agree to relinquish some of their
    exclusive management of their own ports of entry and departure in the interests of
    collective security.
    Canada is no stranger to the extraterritorial application of its security interests,
    having pioneered the practice of stationing its own Immigration Control Officers in
    foreign airports. There are currently 48 such officers and more are planned. These
    officers have assisted in the detection of persons heading for Canada with false
    documents or contraband. Canada is currently training US officers to perform
    similar duties abroad.
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 21
    19 The document was obtained under the Access to Information Act by lawyer Richard Kurland and
    published in Lexbase, October 2002.
    The successful deployment of Canada’s Immigration Control Officers suggests
    that the country’s security perimeter extends well beyond national or continental
    boundaries. “Interdiction” and “prevention” will be the preferred methods of
    defence. The ability to anticipate and thwart the plans of dangerous travelers
    before they are under way to their destinations will be the focus of security efforts
    in North America and abroad.
    Canada and the United States can and should maintain independent immigration
    policies. That spirit of independence will be tempered, however, by the knowledge
    that the two countries are inextricably linked by geography and commerce. Neither
    party can reliably secure its lengthy common border without the other’s cooperation.
    Nor can either country risk the commercial gridlock likely to ensue from a unilateral
    attempt to shut down its borders.
    Thus, it is in the interests of both countries to continue the trend toward formal
    cooperation and bilateralism that has been emerging for some years, but which has
    been accelerated and repackaged since September 11, 2001.
    Changes planned or undertaken in regulations, procedures and attitudes have
    focused on the better and closer management of the flow of people and goods
    across the border.
    Despite some finger pointing in both directions, the two countries share
    markedly similar problems in border security. Better intelligence about terrorist
    groups, human smugglers and other criminals will provide visa officers and
    border inspectors with stronger tools. Improved examinations at ports of entry and
    interceptions at foreign points of embarkation will provide additional layers of
    defence. Better technology, higher funding levels, more human resources and more
    sharing of information among national, continental, and international law
    enforcement agencies will make a difference.
    Offshore applicants for permanent resident status, already subject to criminal
    and security checks, will go through more extensive screening. In-country refugee
    claimants will find initial identity checks to be more thorough and the prospect of
    interim detention more likely — particularly in Canada, where this has not been
    the norm. In the face of such enhanced screening, sophisticated wrongdoers will be
    tempted to avoid this scrutiny in favour of joining the vast numbers of tourists,
    business travelers and international students that are granted generous access to
    North America.
    Neither Canada nor the United States needs to reduce the inflow of temporary
    entrants. But both countries need to know that these visitors will comply with the
    terms of their visas, attend the schools in which they are enrolled, work with their
    designated employers and leave the country at the expiry of their status. This
    compliance process will require more consideration and resources than the
    Canadian government has yet committed — and higher expectations of the private
    sector. The US government appears to be taking hold of this admittedly ambitious
    undertaking, in part by improving its own tracking systems, but also by placing
    greater responsibility and liability on the shoulders of the commercial and academic
    sectors, which are direct beneficiaries of the large influx of temporary entrants.
    22 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    While the United States and Canada are bound to move in tandem on many
    security and border issues, they can act separately on matters related to immigrant
    selection. On this issue, Canada has picked a path that is markedly different from
    that of its neighbour. It has made the pursuit of young, skilled immigrants and
    temporary workers an element in a strategy to address looming demographic
    challenges and skills shortages. The strategy is not without its critics. It is,
    however, a well-defined and rather pioneering approach to a policy area that
    challenges and frightens legislators worldwide.
    The United States, understandably preoccupied with homeland security, has
    not yet focused on the characteristics or size of its legal immigrant flow. It ultimately
    may decide to ignore, reject, or compete with the Canadian immigrant and temporary
    worker models. The two countries can choose to disagree on these issues.
    The acceptance of an increasingly harmonized, continental approach to border
    maintenance does not require the abandonment of a “made-in-Canada” immigrant
    selection policy that is geared to meeting domestic priorities. There are limits to
    cooperation, even between good neighbours.
    Becker, Robert, and Ray Gibson. 2002. “INS student visa system in disarray; U.S. loses track of
    schools; some no longer exist.” Chicago Tribune, March 17. Available at website:
    Borjas, G.J. 2001. “Immigration Policy: A Proposal.” Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies.
    Available at website:
    Briggs, Jr., Vernon M. 2001. “American Unionism and US Immigration Policy.” Washington, DC:
    Center for Immigration Studies. Available at website: www.
    Canada. 2000. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Facts and Figures 2000: Immigration Overview.
    Ottawa. Available at website:
    ———. 2001a. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “Canada Affirms Commitment to Immigration.”
    News Release 2001-2. Ottawa. Available at website:
    ———. 2001b. “Canada-United States Issue Statement on Common Security Priorities.” News Release,
    December 3.
    ———. 2001c. “Canada and the United States Sign Smart Border Declaration.” News Release,
    December 12.
    ———. 2001d. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Facts and Figures 2001: Immigration Overview.
    ———. 2001e. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Facts and Figures: Statistical Overview of the
    Temporary Resident and Refugee Claimant Population. Ottawa.
    ———. 2001f. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “The Immigration Plan for 2002.” Backgrounder 1.
    ———. 2001g. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “The Immigration Plan for 2002.” Backgrounder 2.
    Ottawa. Available at website:
    ———. 2001h. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Strategic Research and Review: Recent Immigrants
    in Metropolitan Areas. Ottawa. Available at website:
    ———. 2002a. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. News Release, April 17.
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 23
    ———. 2002b. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. News Release, October 16. Available at website:
    ———. 2002c. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. “Canada’s Actions against
    Terrorism since September 11.” Backgrounder. January 15.
    ———. 2002d. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. “Canada-US Immigration
    Cooperation.” Available at website:
    Collacott, Martin. 2001. “Canada is a great country — for refugees.” National Post, August 4.
    Grimaldi, James. 2002. “Planned INS probe of students blocked; schools opposed in depth checks.”
    Washington Post, March 16, p. A12. Available at website:
    Krikorian, Mark. 2002. “Get Tight: Now More than Ever, Immigration Should Be Curtailed.” National
    Review, March 25.
    McAuley, John. 2002. “Immigrants Keep U.S. Economy Supple.” Associated Press, September 4.
    Available at website:
    Mosisa, Abraham. 2002. “The Role of Foreign-Born Workers in the U.S. Economy.” Monthly Labor
    Review 125 (May).
    Mowbray, Joel. 2002. “Visas That Should Have Been Denied.” National Review, October 28.
    Stoffman, Daniel. 2002. Who Gets In: What’s Wrong with Canada’s Immigration Program — and How to Fix
    It. Toronto: Macfarlane Walter and Ross.
    United States. 2000a. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Fact Sheet:
    Border Patrol Fiscal Year 2000 Recruiting and Hiring Report. Washington, DC.
    ———. 2000b. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Temporary Admissions,
    Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC. Available at website:
    ———. 2002a. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Annual Report: Legal
    Immigration, Fiscal Year 2001 (No. 6, August 2002). Washington, DC. Available at website: .
    ———. 2002b. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Fact Sheet, July 2.
    Washington, DC.
    ———. 2002c. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. “Meeting on Proposed
    Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada for Asylum Seekers.” Federal Register 67 (134, July 12).
    ———. 2002d. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Triennial Comprehensive
    Report on Immigration. Washington, DC. Available at website:
    ———. 2000e. White House. Office of the Press Secretary. “Summary of Smart Border Action Plan
    Status.” September 9.
    Ziglar, James W. 2001. Statement of the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
    before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government Regarding
    Northern Border Security. Washington, DC, October 3.
    24 C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    “The Border Papers” Series of
    C.D. Howe Institute Commentary
    No. 162, April 2002 Dobson, Wendy. “Shaping the Future of the North American Economic Space: A Framework for
    Action.” 32 pp.; $12.00; ISBN 0-88806-551-5.
    No. 166, June 2002 Granatstein, J.L. “A Friendly Agreement in Advance: Canada-US Defense Relations Past, Present,
    and Future.” 22 pp.; $12.00; ISBN 0-88806-558-2.
    No. 167, July 2002 Robson, William B.P., and David Laidler. “No Small Change: The Awkward Economics and Politics
    of North American Monetary Integration.” 29 pp.; $12.00; ISBN 0-88806-559-0.
    No. 168, September 2002 Macrory, Patrick. “NAFTA Chapter 19: A Successful Experiment in International Trade Dispute
    Resolution.” 24 pp.; $12.00; ISBN 0-88806-561-2.
    No. 173, November 2002 Ramirez De la O, Rogelio. “Mexico: NAFTA and Prospects for North American Integration.” 25 pp.;
    $12.00; ISBN 0-88806-562-0.
    The C.D. Howe Institute
    The C.D. Howe Institute is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that
    aims to improve Canadians’ standard of living by fostering sound economic and
    social policy.
    The Institute promotes the application of independent research and analysis to
    major economic and social issues affecting the quality of life of Canadians in all
    regions of the country. It takes a global perspective by considering the impact of
    international factors on Canada and bringing insights from other jurisdictions to
    the discussion of Canadian public policy. Policy recommendations in the Institute’s
    publications are founded on quality research conducted by leading experts and
    subject to rigorous peer review. The Institute communicates clearly the analysis
    and recommendations arising from its work to the general public, the media,
    academia, experts, and policymakers.
    The Institute was created in 1973 by a merger of the Private Planning Association
    of Canada (PPAC) and the C.D. Howe Memorial Foundation. The PPAC, formed in
    1958 by business and labour leaders, undertook research and educational activities
    on economic policy issues. The Foundation was created in 1961 to memorialize the
    late Rt. Hon. Clarence Decatur Howe, who served Canada as Minister of Trade and
    Commerce, among other elected capacities, between 1935 and 1957. The Foundation
    became a separate entity in 1981.
    The Institute encourages participation in and support of its activities from
    business, organized labour, associations, the professions, and interested individuals.
    For further information, please contact the Institute’s Development Officer.
    The Chairman of the Institute is Guy Savard; Jack M. Mintz is President and
    Chief Executive Officer.

scholarships in canada for international students 2020

Canada’s International
Education Strategy:
Focus on Scholarships
Sheila Embleton
Neil Gold
André Lapierre
Michael Stevenson
2 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
1.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.1 PURPOSE OF PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
1.2 METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
2.0 OBSERVATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.1 ENHANCING THE CANADIAN BRAND………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.2 ALIGNING WITH LABOUR MARKET NEEDS …………………………………………………………………………… 7
2.4 ACCEPTING THAT COMPLEXITY IS INHERENT ……………………………………………………………………… 10
2.5 PROVIDING COORDINATION AND LEADERSHIP …………………………………………………………………… 12
3.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
Appendix A Interview Protocol …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Appendix B List of People / Organizations interviewed ………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Appendix C Scholarships and Awards Open to International Students (with source)…………………………………… 21
Appendix D Documents and websites reviewed or consulted …………………………………………………………………. 23
Canadian Bureau for International Education
ISBN: 978-1-894129-71-8
ISSN: 1183-4404
Également disponible en français
© 2011 Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE)
Price: CBIE Members $20 plus shipping and handling
Non-members $28 plus shipping and handling
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.
Canadian Bureau for International Education
220 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 1550
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Z9
ISBN: 978-1-894129-69-5
ISSN: 1183-4404
Également disponible en français
© 2011 Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE)
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author.
Canadian Bureau for International Education
220 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 1550
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5Z9
613-237-4820 CBIE acknowledges the contribution of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, Canada to the publication of this report.
Foreign Affairs and Affaires étrangères et
International Trade Canada Commerce international Canada
Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 3
In the past decade, internationalization has emerged
as one of the most salient trends in higher education
across the globe. Canada is no exception, with
institutions, organizations and governments devoting
considerable resources (time, energy, staff and finances)
to internationalization.
Internationalization now appears in many university
and college academic plans, in many job titles, and
increasingly in some form in the curricula of our
post-secondary institutions and on the minds of
our students. Employers increasingly speak of the
need for employees with international and crosscultural experience. Provincial/territorial and federal
governments, directly and through agencies they fund
at arm’s length, are more than ever both speaking
about and investing in internationalization.
However, internationalization means different things
to different people and organizations. Definitions
vary. Even where they align, different aspects of
internationalization are emphasized.
Underpinning the variations are different motivations
and rationales. In Canada, they include:
Internationalizing Canadians
and Canadian Research
• To give domestic students opportunities to go
abroad, in order to experience the world and in order
to develop Canada’s overall workforce to succeed in
a globalized economy and interconnected world.
• To bring a global experience to domestic classrooms
to allow Canadian students who are unable to travel
or live abroad for any extended period of time to
become more globally aware, understand cultural
differences, and learn how to interact cross-culturally.
• To broaden horizons and interactions for researchers
(including graduate students), leading to better or
quicker results. Many of the world’s current problems
are multinational and too complex to be solved by
one country alone.
• To enhance institutional reputation. Some institutions
believe that visibility overseas will strengthen their
reputation, both domestically and in global rankings.
This in turn will bring other benefits, ranging from
prestige, to success in recruiting cutting-edge
faculty and top students, to improved finances
(e.g. donations, ability to get grants, etc.).
Attracting Talent
• To attract students who will contribute to Canada’s
research and development.
• To attract students who will then stay in Canada as
new skilled, intelligent, and hard-working immigrants,
and who will adapt and acclimatize quickly because
part of their education is here. Hence, to enhance
the talent pool and help to fill the labour force gap
caused by the declining domestic youth population.
• To attract students who will return home (or go to
a third country) often to be among the future leaders
and entrepreneurs of the country in which they settle,
who will understand Canadian culture and values,
and have ongoing links or affinity to Canada. These
graduates yield reputational political and trade benefits
for Canada in the future, as well as creating a form of
“soft power.”
• To gain new Canadian-educated Canadian citizens who
know the history, language, culture, views, concerns,
and politics of other countries or regions, whether for
trade or other aspects of national interest and security.
Development Assistance
• To help developing countries through preparing their
future workforce, either in Canada or in their home
country. This is a form of foreign aid, and the rationale
can range from pure altruism to the generation of
future influence or reputation (again, soft power) for
Economic Impact
• To benefit financially from enrolling international
students. Institutions may want to recruit international
students because they can charge them higher fees,
in some cases higher than the actual cost of educating
them, which becomes a revenue source. Governments
and local communities also benefit economically from
the presence of international students. A 2009 DFAIT
report states that international education contributes
$6.5 billion per year of economic activity to Canada,
along with producing $291 million in government
revenue and economic activity sustaining 83,000
jobs. As an export, international education surpasses
coniferous lumber and coal. Provincial reports also
cite the substantial impact of international education:
in Nova Scotia, $231 million annually; and in BC,
$1.8 billion annually with 21,540 jobs created.
4 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships

  1. In 2008, 16,000 international students, about 40% of the total cohort
    of eligible students, were granted an Off-Campus Work Permit.
  2. In 2008, 18,000 graduates applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit,
    up 63% from 2007.
    All of these are directly relevant to international
    scholarship strategies. This includes the last, economic
    impact, because scholarships can serve as attractors
    that offer partial funding but — due to additional
    expenditures in Canada such as special purchases
    and family visits – generally yield more than they
    cost the funder.
    Any institution, organization or government may
    espouse several of the above rationales and may
    want to achieve several goals simultaneously. Whatever
    the goal, the strategy needs to be clear, or the ability
    to reach the goal is compromised. In an era of limited
    resources — time, energy, staff, money — and of
    increasing accountability, it is more important than
    ever to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
    This paper aims to contribute to Canada’s ability
    to realize this array of internationalization goals by
    offering information, analysis and recommendations
    regarding the role of scholarships in reaching them.
    Although the major focus is on international
    scholarships (meaning support given to foreign citizens
    for study in Canada), it is impossible to separate this
    fully from many related topics which touch directly
    on the reasons why those students want to come to
    Canada in the first place and the experiences of those
    students in actually coming to Canada.
    A few of these integrally related topics are marketing
    and branding, recruitment practices, the process of
    obtaining visas, the ability to work while a student
    in Canada1
    , the ability to work after graduating from
    a Canadian institution2
    , the attractiveness of Canada
    and Canadian values, and the ability to become a
    permanent resident and then citizen of Canada at
    some point during or after their studies.
    The overall goal of this project is to help position
    Canada for greater success in internationalization
    of higher education, as measured by an enhanced
    ability to:
    • Attract and retain international talent
    as an avenue to fulfilling foreign policy objectives
    and to enhancing national prosperity.
    • Develop international graduates
    who, upon their return home (or departure to
    a third country), maintain strong ties with Canada,
    including research collaboration and trade.
    In order to do this, the report will examine what
    federal government departments and provincial/
    territorial governments are offering in international
    scholarships to bring students to study in Canada;
    attempt to identify any trends, gaps, or best practices;
    and if possible to get some sense of the return on
    investment (ROI) of international scholarships. It
    will then try to determine the goals and strategies
    underpinning these scholarships.
    The paper will conclude by making recommendations,
    which the authors believe, if adopted, will increase
    program effectiveness and impact. Conclusions and
    recommendations will be situated in context of the
    overall importance of internationalization of education
    and of international reality (e.g. competition for
    students, including the “best and brightest”).
    Given that the vast majority of existing international
    scholarships are for university study, the report focuses
    on that level.
    Nevertheless, wherever possible, the paper offers
    observations on community college and institute
    Clearly there is room for increased attention to
    scholarships in vocational, trade and professional
    areas taught in community colleges and institutes.
    The importance of these programs to both Canada
    and to other countries is enormous. Canada faces
    a looming deficit of skilled workers — essentially the
    people who build and maintain the infrastructure of
    our communities. Reinforced commitment to this field
    through both domestic and international scholarships
    is needed to stave off major Canadian workforce
    shortages in future. Other countries, both developing
    and industrialized, face the same issue to varying
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 5
    Moreover, Canada’s college and institute programs
    have developed competency-based programming
    of world renown. Countries as diverse as Mali and
    Qatar have sought out Canadian college models and
    programs. International scholarships could reinforce
    Canada’s prowess in college education and yield labour
    force benefits both for us and for beneficiary countries.
    Canada has an added advantage in the “pathways”
    that currently exist between the various component
    institutions of our education systems, and those
    that are now being built. The substantial growth in
    articulation programs and increasing flexibility of credit
    transfer between colleges and universities — pioneered
    in British Columbia and Alberta — help domestic
    students and are proving attractive to international
    students as well. A pathways study is currently
    being conducted by the Canadian Consortium for
    International Education Marketing (CCIEM). The results
    of this research will help us better understand the
    mechanisms that we have available, see where to make
    adjustments, and assist us in conveying information
    to an international audience.
    This report offers a snapshot of the current state of
    international scholarships and strategies across Canada
    and offers recommendations for the future.
    Further research should review the Canadian landscape
    in the context of strategies of other countries offering
    international scholarships.
    In addition, further research is urged regarding
    international scholarships for which Canadian students
    are eligible, an area outside the scope of this report
    but undoubtedly of major importance to Canada.
    The authors conducted approximately 40 interviews
    from coast to coast, in person or by telephone. The
    interview protocol, which served as a template to be
    varied as appropriate for each interview, appears as
    Appendix A. The list of interviewees is in Appendix B.
    Collectively the interviewees represent many years
    of experience in internationalization, in government,
    in education practice and leadership, in grant and
    scholarship administration, in student recruitment,
    in fostering relationships with Canada and the
    international community, and in managing umbrella
    academic organizations. Some are current or past
    international students in Canada or elsewhere. There
    are many more we would have liked to interview3
    but either their time or ours did not permit this.
    Our thanks go to all these people for their ideas,
    thoughts, and intelligent advice, as well as for giving
    generously of their precious time. There is no direct
    attribution of comments because sufficient consensus
    emerged to make this unnecessary.
    In addition, we did web research, we read reports,
    program guides, and impact studies, and we gathered
    some statistics. All but one of the reports reviewed are
    in the public domain. Two members of the research
    group attended the Metropolis national forum
    for migration research and policy in Vancouver in
    March 2011. As well there were reflections from and
    discussions between members of the research group,
    all experienced senior academic administrators with
    a long history and interest in internationalization and
    higher education policy in their own right.
  3. In particular, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada; Citizenship and
    Immigration Canada; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada;
    and more senior civil servants in provincial governments, senior academic
    administrators, and international recruiters at large universities across the
    6 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    There is worldwide consensus that today’s most
    important resource is human talent, creating fierce
    competition to attract and retain “the best and the
    Now and over the next decade, Canadians can expect
    competition for the large international student talent
    pool to intensify dramatically. In particular countries
    will make huge efforts to attract Asian talent — notably
    from two highly populated international student source
    countries, China and India. Another focal point will
    be Brazil, with the highest population in the Americas
    after the United States.
    In an increasingly competitive global market for talent,
    our research strongly suggests that Canada must take
    a holistic and proactive approach to recruiting and
    retaining international students.
    The observations of our 40 interviewees, integrated
    with our own, are summarized below under the
    following themes:
    • Enhancing the Canadian brand
    • Aligning with labour market needs
    • Communicating the value international students
    offer Canada
    • Accepting that complexity is inherent
    • Providing coordination and leadership
    • Supporting with technology and web presence
    • Building an ambassadors network and building
    Canada is seen as being doubly blessed, first, having
    abundant natural resources and second, stable political,
    economic, judicial and social systems. Canadians are
    perceived as nice, non-aggressive and polite people,
    who live in a clean and peaceful environment, have
    a high standard of living, and have built a low-crime,
    multicultural, tolerant society. Thus Canada has an
    inherent appeal for attracting foreign students and
    inducing them to stay after their studies.
    Where scholarships can incentivize the building of
    Canada’s image is in bringing attention to Canada’s
    dynamic, high tech, innovative and entrepreneurial
    The 2010 Nation Branding survey suggests that
    Canada’s global image is changing (
    We are increasingly seen as “creative, competitive,
    cosmopolitan and connected,” in addition to being
    caring and community-minded. Canadian branding
    and scholarship offerings can complement each other
    to recruit and retain international students who can
    help build this dynamic Canada.
    Academics and researchers interviewed stressed the
    importance of both innovation and interdisciplinarity,
    both of which are greatly enhanced when people
    from different and diverse backgrounds work together
    on a problem or learn together in a classroom.
    Canadian educational institutions are known abroad
    for encouraging and promoting innovation and
    interdisciplinarity. However this message could get
    to a broader audience through strategic scholarship
    offerings linked to promotion of Canada’s education
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 7
    In Canada, there is wide — but not universal —
    recognition of our country’s continuing need for
    immigrants. This is partly because we are a nation
    of immigrants and believe that immigration is key to
    building our nation. There are repeated reports of the
    need to fill very large current and impending labour
    market gaps. The federal Department of Finance
    identified international students as a key component
    of human resource development in Advantage
    Canada (2006) and reinforced this view with respect
    to “attracting and developing talent” in Compete to
    Win (2008). Details vary — and such matters are
    notoriously difficult to predict — but projections
    suggest that the number of bachelor’s, master’s and
    doctoral graduates over the next ten to 20 years is
    much less than the number of skilled jobs that will
    need to be filled. This labour market dilemma is
    further fuelled by an expanding economy, an aging
    population and low birth rates. Immigration is a natural
    and historic solution for Canada. More specifically,
    the alignment of international scholarships with
    immigration policy allows targeting towards specific
    labour market gaps.
    Several interviewees observed that the need for financial
    incentives for international students was equally
    critical at colleges and institutes, as the labour gap
    is just as urgent in the professions and trades taught
    at these institutions. Many colleges and institutes
    also offer applied degrees which prepare students
    for careers much needed in Canada’s workforce. It
    was suggested that scholarships could be partial, for
    example, $1,000 admission scholarships, and could
    be offered only to students deemed “excellent” (e.g.
    over 90%/A+, best in their high school, etc.). Details
    would need to be worked out, including possible cofunding with the institutions themselves, but it was
    felt that it was important that these not be seen as
    solely institutional and that there be some uniformity
    or branding by province if not nationally. Finally, it was
    observed that this kind of support would go far in
    enhancing international student enrolment in Canadian
    colleges and institutes and have the spin-off benefit of
    attracting a substantial cohort of these new students to
    long-term life and work in Canada, in fields of current
    or impending shortage.
    Many interviewees addressed the need to “regionalize,”
    that is, to attract international students and immigrants
    (as well as native Canadians) to live, study and work
    outside the 20 or so major urban centres across
    Canada, and particularly in the provinces and territories
    with smaller populations. For example, Nova Scotia
    and New Brunswick receive a small segment of the
    immigrant population. By contrast, Ontario receives
    over 40% of Canada’s international students and
    almost 50% of Canada’s immigrants.
    Flows of international students and immigrants are
    largely an urban phenomenon. In aiming to increase
    international students, we must encourage the flow
    of students to smaller cities and communities. How
    to do this is challenging, but it is imperative that we
    try. The alternative is to deepen the existing economic
    disparity between regions and provinces, given the
    strong correlation between the presence of strong,
    viable universities and colleges in a community and the
    community’s attainment in research and development,
    education outcomes, internationalization, job creation
    and overall economic development. For a snapshot
    showing the stark enrolment disparity between urban
    centres, see the CIC data: “Canada: Foreign students
    present on December 1st by province or territory and
    urban area, 2006–2010” (
    Beyond scholarships, a few jurisdictions that prioritize
    workforce expansion have developed programs that
    encourage international students to stay on following
    Saskatchewan’s Graduate Retention Program
    incentivizes students who remain in or come to
    Saskatchewan for work after graduation. When they
    file their Saskatchewan tax return, they are reimbursed
    for some or all of their fees up to $20,000 (spread
    over up to five years). Note that these students can
    have studied in Saskatchewan, any Canadian province
    or territory, or abroad. In other words, the program is
    available to both domestic and international students.
    A similar program in Manitoba offers a rebate of up
    to $25,000 (within the first ten years of graduating)
    provided the graduate files a Manitoba tax return.
    Strictly speaking, these are not scholarships, but a
    financial reward (if the student is willing to go into debt
    and be reimbursed later) which is directed only at those
    who actually stay and contribute to the economy as
    permanent residents or citizens. While not serving the
    purpose of attracting students in the first place, such
    a reward is a creative use of financial resources to retain
    them. Other provinces or the federal government could
    adopt such tax incentive programs, sensitive to labour
    market needs both in terms of particular trades and
    professions, and in terms of regional development.
    8 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    Many of our interviewees felt that using scholarships
    to recruit international students who would then
    be converted to immigrants was only one prong
    in a successful labour market strategy. They pointed
    to the need to bring more aboriginal students and
    more students with disabilities successfully through
    to graduation and then into the labour force. Some
    interviewees also pointed out that women, despite
    now being in the majority in post-secondary
    institutions, are still seriously underrepresented in
    some disciplines and have challenges in the labour
    market. For example, women now make up half of
    doctoral graduates, but not half of those employed
    in jobs requiring doctorates. Additionally, women
    continue to earn less than men in comparable jobs.
    Type and level of scholarship was also raised in the
    context of alignment with labour market needs.
    Interviewees urged greater government investment
    to increase the number of “high-end” scholarships
    at the graduate and post-doctoral level (e.g. more
    support for the Vanier scholarships, DFAIT Post-Doctoral
    Fellowships, Banting and Trillium scholarships, and
    new programs serving different fields or niche areas).
    Acknowledging the importance of graduate-level
    scholarships, some interviewees urged greater financial
    support for excellent international undergraduates
    to signal that Canada welcomes and values younger
    people, and supports their academic aspirations, as
    well as seeking individuals who are already contributing
    to research and development.
    Admittedly, viewing international scholarship
    programming uniquely or primarily through the labour
    force development lens leaves us open to the charge
    that Canada is a poacher of top talent from abroad.
    This is most acutely negative in the case of developing
    and emerging countries which keenly wish to have their
    graduates return home to contribute their skills and
    For many, the effort to attract international talent
    constitutes enlightened self-interest. Other countries
    seek to attract Canada’s talent, notably the United
    Nevertheless, while supporting talent attraction and
    retention, most of our interviewees also urged the
    return home of students from lower income countries,
    and certainly, of those who fully sponsored by their
    home (developing) countries.
    DFAIT in particular has addressed this matter through
    a significant modification of much of its programming.
    In the past, programs such as the Commonwealth
    Scholarships offered by DFAIT provided full master’s
    and PhD scholarships with many awarded to students
    from Africa and Asia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
    a substantial percentage of these students remained
    in Canada following the conclusion of their studies.
    In an effort to combat this trend, DFAIT now offers a
    large number of short-term, exchange-type scholarships
    instead of full programs. Students stay in Canada only
    four to six months.
    Nevertheless, some of our interviewees believe strongly
    that more altruistic forms of full-program of study
    scholarship aid for developing and emerging countries
    (as under the Colombo Plan, long-term Commonwealth
    Scholarships, and the Bourses de la Francophonie)
    should be enhanced. As one interviewee phrased it,
    “These people ended up running countries.” It should
    not all be about attracting immigrants to Canada. As
    a prosperous nation, we should be a leader in this.
    We urge that Canadians engage in a robust discussion
    of the tension between talent attraction to Canada and
    the talent needs of developing and emerging countries,
    with a view to devising ways that we can continue to
    serve both our own needs and those of countries that
    depend on our support.
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 9
    The argument that international students contribute to
    the social and economic fibre of Canada is not without
    its critics. Domestic anti-immigrant politics are currently
    on the rise, a trend not unique to Canada. This antiimmigrant or anti-international student sentiment
    centres around three issues: public expenditure, access
    to university and college places, and access to jobs.
    A recent prominent example of anti-international
    student sentiment was the widespread negative
    reaction to the announcement of the Trillium doctoral
    fellowships in Ontario. Money spent on scholarships
    for international students was seen as taking away
    from money spent on domestic students. This was
    still the case when it was made clear that funding
    for the Trilliums was “new” money. Those against the
    program argued that the funding should have been
    spent on domestic students whose parents pay taxes
    and who graduate with large debts or perhaps who
    cannot afford to go to university in the first place.
    Furthermore, in the face of federal granting council
    budget reductions and consequent low success rates
    for applicants, it has also been suggested by some
    domestic researchers that funding would be more
    effectively spent on domestic researchers. Money spent
    on marketing Canadian education abroad has been
    criticized – it is not necessary and could have been
    likewise better spent on domestic students.
    In terms of university and college spaces, it is
    sometimes felt that international students take seats
    away from domestic students who then cannot
    gain admission and enjoy the economic prospects
    that a university or college education can bring. This
    sentiment is exacerbated by ever-increasing class sizes,
    by continual talk of pressure on institutional spaces
    especially in areas of rapid population growth (such
    as the Greater Toronto Area), or at times such as the
    “double cohort” entry point in September 2003 in
    Whenever institutions talk about shortages of either
    physical space or places for students, the volume goes
    up on questioning why we enrol international students
    when we have difficulty accommodating domestic
    Recently Dalhousie University admitted ten Saudi
    Arabian students into its medical school, at a much
    higher fee than that being paid by domestic students.
    The ensuing public outcry was largely although not
    entirely around why Dalhousie was giving seats in
    its medical school to international students when
    everybody knows how many bright hard-working
    domestic students cannot get into medical school.
    Critics missed the fact that the money earned
    by teaching these international medical students
    subsidized the costs of teaching the domestic
    medical students.
    In terms of jobs, many people do not understand
    the labour market predictions, nor the increasing
    need for skilled rather than unskilled workers, nor
    the shifting areas of demand. Instead what they see
    are unemployed Canadians while yet more immigrants
    are being admitted. None of this is a uniquely
    Canadian phenomenon, and no country seems to
    be successful at fully explaining these labour market
    issues to its domestic population. If highly skilled
    and educated immigrants are a necessity for future
    economic prosperity, and international scholarships are
    a crucial part in attracting such immigrants to Canada,
    then a better job must be done to communicate the
    complexities of this issue, prior to the introduction of
    new international scholarships.
    Some of the interviewees outside Ontario did not
    expect their provinces to follow suit with a program
    like the Trilliums, as wonderful as they think the
    program is, due to the negative public reaction in
    One strategy which may help encourage greater public
    acceptance of scholarships for international students
    is a simultaneous increase our efforts to send more
    domestic students to work or study abroad, for a year
    or a term. It is recognized that domestic students need
    more exposure to Brazil, Russia, India and China, and
    to other rapidly developing and economically important
    countries, and that Canada needs to catch up with
    what competitors in Europe and now also the USA are
    doing. World of Learning, a 2009 CBIE study, reported
    that 90% of Canadians in a nationwide poll, across
    a range of age groups, believe that Canadian students
    should have the opportunity to study abroad. Over
    80% said that government funding should be available
    to help them to do so.
    Furthermore, sending more Canadian students abroad
    might indirectly lead to more knowledge of Canada and
    the quality of our education system abroad, which in
    turn might lead to recruiting more excellent (potentialimmigrant) students. As well, when Canadian students
    10 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    return to Canada, they rediscover their own country
    with an enriched vision, deepened appreciation,
    fresh outlook and greater readiness to contribute
    to Canadian society.
    There are a few existing supports for Canadians
    outbound, including:
    • Canada Student Loans and Provincial Student
    Loans can be used for study abroad;
    • The Government of Canada Budget 2011 tax
    measure (tax credits and Registered Education
    Savings Plan assistance) helps Canadians studying
    • Provincial mobility programs such as Ontario
    Universities International (OUI), which manages
    four consortia exchanges with China, France,
    Germany and India on behalf of universities;
    • Many individual universities have their own
    (admittedly limited) supports for both undergraduate
    and graduate students on approved study or work
    abroad programs — only a handful of colleges
    have similar support.
    Unfortunately, at the time of writing this paper, funding
    was eliminated for the International Academic Mobility
    Program engaging Canadian institutions and students
    with partners in the European Union, Mexico and the
    . This program, funded through Human Resources
    and Skills Development Canada, had provided support
    for 350 students per year to study or work abroad on
    exchange, in the context of institution-to-institution
    Overall, much greater attention needs to be paid to this
    part of the internationalization picture. Government
    statements indicate awareness of the importance of
    outbound mobility, but specific programming is lacking.
    Moreover, greater flexibility in existing programs and
    departments is needed to permit responsiveness to
    opportunities such as bilateral programs proposed
    by foreign governments. Consideration should be given
    to an ongoing responsive fund offering the capacity to
    leverage funds from other countries, co-fund mobility
    programs, and similar joint initiatives that spur student
    mobility in both directions.
    Public support for internationalization would increase
    with clear messaging from stakeholders that it is a twoway street.
    Our interviews revealed a strong sense that the array
    of different international scholarship programs across
    the country is confusing. Most interviewees had
    difficulty understanding the full range of scholarships
    for international students wishing to study within their
    own province (i.e. federal support, plus that unique
    to their own province), let alone knowing what was
    available in other provinces.
    The jurisdictional reality is part of the challenge.
    Education, including higher education, is a provincial
    domain and increasingly provinces wish to play a role
    in the international aspects of education. International
    relations are chiefly within the federal domain and
    the federal government wishes to enhance Canada’s
    standing as an education actor on the world stage.
    Nevertheless respondents appreciated the grand variety
    of awards offered by an array of specialized bodies.
    They accept that complexity is inherent in a country
    with multiple interests and stakeholders. They simply
    urge greater clarity around:
    • Type of awards offered
    • Rationale for offering
    • Relationship with/comparability to other awards
    More than anything they seek quick access to all awards
    relevant to a particular individual, field, destination
    (e.g. institution or province-specific or open). Access
    to clear, comprehensive information is addressed more
    fully in section 2.5.
    Interviewees named a few areas where improvement
    could be made without major change in existing
    For example, some consider the boundaries between
    the major granting councils to be blurry. They urged
    greater definition or demarcation among the awards
    of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
    (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes for Health Research
    (CIHR), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering
    Research Council (NSERC).
    Some noted that “ephemeral” programs, that is,
    offered for a brief span rather than sustained over
    the long haul (e.g. British Columbia’s former Asia
    Pacific Student Awards for international students,
    One World Scholarships, and Pacific Century Graduate
    Fellowships) have limited impact, add to confusion, 4. This program was cancelled June 27, 2011, just as this paper was submitted.
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 11
    require disproportionate amounts of infrastructure for
    the benefits, and can make branding difficult. Many
    interviewees referred to a need for greater stability
    in award programming.
    Interviewees noted that in some cases international
    students are eligible to apply for exactly the same
    scholarships and other supports as domestic students.
    Sometimes there is an internal quota for international
    students (e.g. Ontario Graduate Scholarships (OGS)
    program offers 90 out of 3,000 scholarships annually
    to international students). Others have no internal
    quotas, including: Mitacs programs for graduate or
    post-doctoral students, CIHR and NSERC doctoral and
    post-doctoral awards, Trudeau fellowships, Vaniers and
    Bantings. Individual endowments at universities have all
    kinds of specific conditions and restrictions, including
    country-of-origin restrictions, based on their donor’s
    wishes. While not suggesting that this can or should be
    modified, interviewees noted that the variations caused
    confusion for them, and therefore undoubtedly for
    international students considering an application.
    Stakeholders have a reasonable sense of who are
    Canada’s major scholarship funders, notably DFAIT,
    CIDA, the granting agencies, and to a lesser extent,
    the International Development Research Council (IDRC).
    They are somewhat aware of other agencies that
    receive Canadian support for multilateral work,
    such as the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie.
    As well, there is awareness that DFAIT and CIDA
    scholarships are administered on their behalf by
    external organizations. DFAIT’s scholarships web site,, plays an increasingly
    helpful role in providing clear, comprehensive
    information on scholarships offered by the federal
    government ensuring appropriate recognition of the
    funding body and access to the administering body.
    Constructing a catalogue of scholarships was not in
    the research team’s mandate. Nevertheless a list of
    major awards is offered (in Appendix C) to illustrate
    their glorious variety and the critical need for enhanced,
    well-organized information to provide greater visibility
    to each.
    In a similar vein, it was felt that greater clarity around
    our various work permit programs for international
    students was imperative. Currently there exist the
    Off-Campus Work Permit Program, Post-Graduation
    Work Permit Program, Canadian Experience Class,
    Federal Skilled Worker Program and Provincial Nominee
    Programs. Also attractive are the Spousal Work Permits
    for spouses of international students and Co-op
    Work Permits. All of these programs are excellent
    but could benefit from better, clearer communication
    and cross-referencing.
    Some interviewees added that there is such an
    inordinate amount of information that it is difficult
    to process, even by themselves and by the various
    government departments involved. It is immensely
    confusing and impossible to remember. As a result,
    no individual has an accurate idea of the true extent
    of Canada’s contribution to international education,
    nor of the total financial resources committed to this
    cause. Recently, DFAIT calculated the total amount
    of funding offered by federal government or federally
    funded bodies to Indian scholars to study or, in the case
    of Mitacs, do internships in Canada. The amount was
    approximately $6M annually. Having ready access to
    such information for any given country would be ideal.
    Our conclusion, and that of the majority of those
    interviewed, is that the wide range of agencies involved
    and scholarships offered is an advantage.
    This variety of supporting bodies and of types of
    award allows Canada to leverage enhanced funding,
    to co-fund, and to support a range of disciplines and
    specializations, as well as different formats or types of
    program (e.g. exchanges, full programs, post-doctoral
    fellowships of one year only or renewable, etc.).
    It is not surprising that no single individual or agency is
    fully aware of all programs available. What is important
    is to design mechanisms to obtain information in a
    coherent fashion.
    As the next section suggests, enhanced coordination of
    information is possible without eliminating the benefits
    of variety of funders and types of funding available.
    12 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    One solution to the prevailing confusion could be
    to streamline or limit variation in some way, but our
    interviewees quite vehemently rejected this. There
    was a sense that coordination and harmonization
    should be much better, as long as it does not become
    a straitjacket. We must be attuned to different
    regions of Canada and their labour market needs. Any
    straitjacketing might lead to Canada being less nimble
    over time than it needs to be. As one interviewee put
    it, “lack of a single plan is not fragmentation.” It allows
    different solutions to be developed and if the solution
    is working, it can be communicated as a best practice.
    Other provinces and territories can then choose to
    adapt the solution to their unique circumstances. The
    Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) was
    seen as a positive structure which benchmarks and
    coordinates education practices without trammelling.
    Rather than streamlining, many felt that a body to
    coordinate across ministries federally as well as with
    the provinces and territories, to champion the case
    for international students and their support, was
    overdue, and that without it we simply cannot make
    progress in our competition on the world stage5
    . These
    respondents stressed the urgency of overcoming what
    they see as a self-inflicted handicap in the international
    arena. Several interviewees commented that our
    disadvantage, relative to our competition, of not having
    any national coordinating body is exacerbated by also
    not having a network of cultural centres (which often
    fulfill several related roles as well as giving visibility), like
    the British Council, Alliance française, Goethe Institute
    or DAAD, Confucius Institutes and Japan Foundation.
    A coordinating entity would liaise and consult with
    all stakeholders — the post-secondary institutions,
    the Canadian Consortium for International Education
    Marketing6 (CCIEM), federal, provincial and territorial
    governments, municipalities and employers.
    A few respondents suggested that an enhanced CMEC
    could play this role, while one respondent suggested
    it could be done by the Council of the Federation, and
    others had no concrete suggestion but were insistent
    that a coordinating body is needed.
    Just as the research for this report was concluding,
    an education marketing action plan was issued by the
    Council of the Federation. It emphasizes the need for
    coordination, stating: “A pan-Canadian action plan
    will focus on activities that can be accomplished more
    effectively through collaboration across jurisdictions
    and that add value to jurisdictional and institutional
    initiatives without duplicating or constraining these.
    It will also focus on actions that can benefit all sectors
    and all jurisdictions.”
    A consultative group comprised of the key federal and
    provincial/territorial funding bodies, and the major
    administering organizations, could provide the forum
    needed to share information, enhance communications,
    test new possibilities, avert duplication, and generally
    coordinate for greater overall impact of the scholarships
    offered by Canadian entities to international applicants.
    Going somewhat further, a consultative group could
    conduct research on the impact of Canada’s scholarship
    programs and on global best practices in international
    scholarship programs. This would further allow us to
    define and build our competitive advantage and brand.
    A number of our interviewees commented that Canada
    needs to be far more knowledgeable about what our
    competition is doing, and then react, adapt, and
    hopefully match accordingly.
    However, many interviewees stated that Canada could
    not achieve its overarching goals and successfully
    compete without having an entity that champions
    and advocates proactively on behalf of international
    education, as well as facilitating coordinated efforts.
    Such an entity must have a proactive leadership role,
    not simply a reactive managing one. It needs to be
    able to mobilize players and resources into a collective
    engine, not simply recognize and review the efforts of
    individual jurisdictions or organizations or institutions.
    A Minister of State for International Education
    might play some of the beneficial aspects of the
    role of a national Ministry of Education that we
    lack in comparison to other countries. This portfolio
    could be similar to the role of the Department of
    Education in the USA, a jurisdiction that is actually
    highly decentralized but that can still allow significant
    national announcements to be made concerning
    international scholarships (e.g. President Obama’s
    recent announcements in China and Brazil).
  4. To take one major competitor, Australia has both Austrade and AEI.
    Austrade is responsible for the international marketing and promotion
    of Australian education and training. Australian Education International
    (AEI), part of Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
    Relations, leads strategic policy, regulation and government-to-government
    engagement in the international education sector. Canada also obviously
    needs both functions, whatever agency is designated to accomplish this.
  5. CCIEM was established in June 2010, through an MOU between ACCC,
    AUCC, CBIE, CAPS-International, and Languages Canada, with the goal of
    assisting in the coordination of international education marketing efforts.
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 13
    The most resonating feedback received was the
    difficulty of finding information and the fact that one
    has to know the Canadian structure in order to search
    for the information.
    For example, one has to know our cities and their
    names, and what provinces they are in. How many
    Canadians know that Kolkata is in West Bengal,
    Bangalore in Karnataka, and Mumbai in Maharashtra?
    Yet our information systems require Indian students
    to know that Halifax is in Nova Scotia, Toronto is in
    Ontario, and Sherbrooke is in Québec.
    Furthermore, one has to know what scholarships fall
    under which granting body.
    One has to know that for some scholarships, the
    student can only apply through — and be nominated
    by — their target university, whereas for other
    scholarships the student personally must apply to
    a scholarship administrator.
    Everything is set up from a Canadian point of view, and
    requires an immense amount of contextual knowledge
    — unreasonably so.
    What is needed is a complete change of perspective,
    to see through the eyes of the applicant.
    We also need to drop old-style brochures and even
    websites which just list scholarships and opportunities,
    in favour of a contemporary online keyword searchable
    database. This would make an immense difference
    in our attractiveness. Such a searchable database
    could match the programs of study with the available
    scholarships to support it. An applicant should be able
    to enter a few specific keywords as search terms, and
    the interactive database should be able produce a list
    of possibilities, which can be further sorted and filtered.
    More concretely, a prospective international student
    should be able to enter his or her desired discipline
    area, prospective level of study, preferred language
    of study and citizenship(s), and receive an output that
    lists the best matches of programs and the available
    scholarships (no matter who offers the scholarship,
    ideally including an individual university).
    Some suggested that putting new government
    resources into such a database would be a worthwhile
    Such a database must be visibly government endorsed
    (e.g. Imagine Canada branded) in order to have
    credibility in many countries.
    At the moment DFAIT supports, which is extremely valuable, in that it
    inventories the vast plethora of federal government
    supported programs (including some that are only
    partially funded by government).
    However this site’s database is constructed from a
    Canadian perspective. The emphasis is on the funding
    agency or program name. One begins by putting
    in one’s country of origin, and then gets a list of
    available awards by name and funder. The names
    are not always revealing, e.g. Trudeau Fellowships,
    Sauvé Scholars Program, Research Development
    Initiatives. In fact, the funding agency is the scholarship
    administrator’s concern, not the applicant’s. The result
    is that the applicant receives too much information
    that is extraneous to his or her immediate needs and
    may deter further investigation rather than spur it.
    Nevertheless remains
    a valuable resource, housing an immense amount of
    information and offering one-stop shopping for the
    vast majority of federal offerings.
    An ideal scenario would be to add the provincially
    sponsored programs and possibly those offered
    by foundations without any government support
    to make this a truly comprehensive resource — at
    least of Canadian offerings. There are numerous
    international and foreign awards which permit study
    in various countries, including Canada. Unesco has
    some resources that attempt to capture all of this
    information, a challenging task indeed.
    Moreover, to reduce confusion, two websites/databases
    should be considered: one for inbound and the
    other for outbound. Combining information for both
    international students wishing to come to Canada and
    Canadians wishing to go abroad causes confusion,
    especially given the different modalities concerning
    who applies (institution versus individual) and the offer
    to various types of individuals (students at different
    levels of study, researchers, research teams, etc.).
    Finally, serious consideration should be given to
    providing at least partial information in languages
    other than English and French. This would demonstrate
    real interest in other cultures and ease the way to
    application by making some of the information readily
    accessible. Clearly it would be impossible to conduct all
    processes in languages other than English and French
    but going part way would be an attractive feature.
    14 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    Enhancing the visibility of our scholarships with
    international audiences can be accomplished through
    at least two large groups of individuals, Canadian
    expatriates and foreign alumni of our scholarship
    A recent study by the Asia-Pacific Foundation estimates
    that there are 2.8 million Canadians living abroad. We
    need to find ways to enlist their support to promote
    Canadian education and scholarships.
    Among these Canadian expats are numerous ESL
    and FSL teachers. These teachers could be enlisted to
    promote to students, parents and the public in general,
    possibly via presentations to local service clubs or
    community groups.
    As well, over 70 schools abroad offer one of Canada’s
    provincial curricula at elementary and/or secondary
    level. Many of their teachers are Canadian or Canadianeducated and, given appropriate information and
    resources, would be great promoters of Canada’s
    higher education system. The students of Canadian
    International Schools, three quarters of which are
    in Asia, have a natural interest in and affinity with
    Canada. A network of these schools, organized by a
    Canadian education organization, could help define the
    “pathways” between their diplomas and the Canadian
    higher education sector.
    A network which is currently underutilized are the
    thousands of foreign students educated in Canada
    who have returned home and frequently become
    political or corporate or intellectual leaders in their
    homeland. Individual institutions increasingly reach out
    to their alumni. Finding ways to tap into their networks
    would enable us to build a composite network of
    individuals who could receive pertinent information
    about Canadian education and scholarships to keep
    them personally in touch and ideally to be shared
    with prospective students and scholarship applicants.
    A consultative group could help build an alumni
    development strategy for graduates of international
    student scholarship programs. In the past, Canada
    had some high-end scholarships and post-doctoral
    arrangements under the Colombo Plan and
    Commonwealth Scholarship plan. These have largely
    gone and the recipients largely retired or lost touch
    with Canada. But there will soon be a new generation
    of international students graduating after having held
    prestigious scholarships such as the Vaniers, Bantings,
    DFAIT Post-Doctoral Fellowships, Trilliums, and others
    yet to come. Some of these graduates will elect to stay
    in Canada, in which case the connection to Canada is
    secure. But some will elect to leave Canada, and it is
    imperative that Canada remain in touch with them, by
    creating an alumni network or something like it, and
    at the very least keeping continually updated records
    of names and addresses, years in Canada, institution
    attended, current position and achievements. With
    modern social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and
    Twitter, this should be much easier than in the past,
    offering immediacy and relevance, as well as lifelong
    addresses and automatic forwarding.
    Such a network will also enhance the prestige of these
    awards, emulating the Fulbrights and Rhodes awards,
    as well as help create a lasting bond with Canada. The
    network could also function as a mentoring network,
    a way of recruiting yet more top students to Canada,
    and a way for Canada (perhaps through connections
    with our embassies and consulates abroad) to gather
    market intelligence through local eyes and construct
    appropriate strategies for those markets. When highranking politicians visit such locations abroad, their
    missions could regularly include a brief meeting or
    reception with alumni – again, enhancing the prestige
    of these awards and the ability to stay in touch with
    Consideration should also be given to programs or
    projects that enhance affinity with Canada over time.
    These could include participation in a mission, website
    profiles and roundtables focusing on the Canadian
    educational experience.
    Names are also important in building affinity. While
    considered inconsequential by some, advertising
    experts know that people are more likely to identify
    with and be attracted to a service or product with
    a strong and exciting name. The recent trend to
    using major figures from Canada’s history to name
    programs is laudable. This needs to be compared with
    other successful branding efforts such as Australia’s
    Endeavour Scholarships, Europe’s Erasmus and Erasmus
    Mundus, and the US Fulbright Program to determine
    effectiveness over the short and long term.
    Another suggestion is to recruit the children of the
    2.8 million strong Canadian diaspora back to Canada
    for their university education, which may either help
    re-attach them to Canada or induce them to move
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 15
    back to Canada and fill our labour market gaps. In
    some instances, these are already Canadian citizens,
    so their entire treatment within the post-secondary
    system, including provision of scholarships, would be
    just like that afforded any other Canadian citizen. But
    in other instances, they are not Canadian citizens, in
    which case they are currently functionally like any other
    international student. If they were treated within the
    post-secondary system like Canadians (or permanent
    residents), paying domestic fees and where appropriate
    receiving scholarships as domestic students, effectively
    they are receiving a hidden scholarship that might
    induce that student to relocate to Canada and perhaps
    gain Canadian citizenship.
    Unsurprisingly — and often citing comparisons to other
    countries — a large majority of interviewees wanted
    to see more money put into international scholarships
    and awards. Commentary received was very thoughtful
    — it was mindful of fiscal restraints, of other demands
    for public education funding, and of how to maximize
    effectiveness. Quality over quantity was generally
    uppermost, and thus our scholarships (or other
    incentives) must remain (in some cases) or become
    (in more cases) at internationally competitive levels.
    Scholarships are central to international education and
    must figure prominently in any overall strategy; as with
    any successful instrument of policy, the design of the
    particular scholarships must flow from an overarching
    and consistent strategy.
    This study was an environmental scan. While offering
    valuable information and useful perspectives, more
    research is certainly needed. At the same time, a
    number of our recommendations can and should
    be implemented rapidly, concurrently with further
    Recommendation 1:
    That a Consultative Group on International
    Scholarships be established, reporting at a Ministerial
    level, and comprising all major scholarship funding
    agencies, federal and provincial/territorial, and major
    administering organizations. The mandate of this
    Group would be to enhance communications and
    promotion, conduct research, test new possibilities,
    avert duplication and generally coordinate for greater
    overall impact of the scholarships offered by Canadian
    entities to international applicants. At a minimum the
    Consultative Group should meet monthly. Members
    should be senior representatives who develop and
    manage programs, and who can directly access
    high-level officials who can make decisions regarding
    policy changes, new programs and modifications to
    Recommendation 2:
    That a modern database and web interface be used
    to create a comprehensive searchable applicantoriented tool that would aid international students
    in finding both a suitable academic program as
    well as the requisite scholarship or other financial
    support and incentives. The construction of such a
    16 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    database would require both an initial investment
    and, crucially, ongoing funding to keep it updated and
    comprehensive. The site must have visible government
    backing (e.g. Imagine Canada logo) and an easy-toremember web address.
    Recommendation 3:
    That scholarships be used more strategically to enhance
    Canada’s brand. In particular, scholarships should be
    designed and promoted to support Canada’s image
    as dynamic, high tech, innovative and entrepreneurial.
    Recommendation 4:
    That the overall investment in scholarships be increased,
    specifically: increase the number of DFAIT Post-Doctoral
    Research Fellowships, Vanier Scholarships, Banting
    Fellowships, and Trillium Scholarships, and create
    scholarships similar to the Trilliums in other provinces/
    territories. The Trilliums are considered to be a good
    model for doctoral scholarships — the right length
    (four years) and the right amount ($40,000 per year).
    Moreover, the investment in developing country
    scholarships should be increased, including fullprogram master’s and doctorates.
    Recommendation 5:
    That a nationally or provincially branded symbolic
    scholarship program be established for excellent
    international undergraduate students in their first
    year of post-secondary study in Canada, both college/
    institute and university.
    Recommendation 6:
    That the federal government and the provincial/
    territorial governments explore creative ways, possibly
    through the Income Tax Act, to refund an amount
    roughly equivalent to the differential amount that new
    immigrants paid while they were international students,
    after they have lived and worked in that province/
    territory or Canada for some minimum number of
    years. Related to this, creative ways should be explored
    to use incentives to attract immigrants to live and work,
    for at least 5-10 years, in smaller centres.
    Recommendation 7:
    That ways be explored to recruit back to Canada
    as students the children of the Canadian diaspora,
    regardless of their citizenship, for example by treating
    them as domestic students.
    Recommendation 8:
    That alumni networks of graduates who held
    prestigious scholarships be created, and that these
    networks be used to mentor, recruit, advise, raise
    prestige, and create lasting bonds to Canada. In
    support of this, research should be conducted on ways
    to engender affinity with the Canada education brand
    Recommendation 9:
    That governments, aided by post-secondary institutions
    and industry, develop clear ways of explaining to the
    public the labour market gaps that require skilled
    immigrants in order to ensure our future prosperity.
    In particular, this needs to be done prior to initiation
    of new scholarship programs for international students,
    so that the need and benefit are absolutely clear.
    Recommendation 10:
    That a dialogue be convened to engage Canadians —
    education, government and business — in a robust
    discussion of the tension between talent attraction
    to Canada and the talent needs of developing and
    emerging countries, with a view to devising ways that
    we can continue to serve both our own needs and
    those of countries that depend on our support.
    Recommendation 11:
    That further research be conducted into the role
    played in international education by colleges, language
    schools, and primary/secondary education; and
    that research be conducted on the scholarships and
    scholarship strategies of other countries.
    In Budget 2011, the federal government earmarked
    $10M for an international education strategy. As
    a preliminary step, the government assigned to an
    expert panel the role of making key recommendations
    to the Ministers of Finance and of International Trade,
    including identifying the roles and responsibilities of
    all partners.
    We urge the expert panel to consider the present
    report as part of its deliberations. In particular, we
    urge the panel to integrate a robust international
    scholarships component into its vision for an
    international education strategy. Canada can achieve
    much more in international education with a more
    strategic, coordinated and effectively promoted offer
    of international scholarships. Offering more and, in
    particular, offering more wisely will bring a huge return
    on investment.
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 17
    Appendix A
    Interview Protocol
    CBIE Project on Canada’s International Scholarships Interview Protocol
    II. Questions
    [may need to modify for some interviewees — for
    example whether their agency offers such scholarships,
    or merely observes what is happening]
    II. A. Preliminary questions:
  6. Does your organization offer scholarships to
    international students?
  7. If no, explore any appropriate avenue (e.g., did
    they used to and gave it up and, if so, why? is it
    not a priority for them at all? do they work with
    any agency who does? etc.) [and if no skip to
    section on general/strategy]
  8. If yes, get basic facts first [but not technicalities]
    a. university – undergrad, masters, doctoral
    b. college – degree, diploma, post-graduate
    c. other type of non-degree study e.g., executive
    d. overall:
    i. how long have they been offering them?
    ii. how many per year?
    iii. dollar value per scholarship
    iv. total budget for this
    v. restricted to any particular countries
    vi. restricted to any particular provinces
    vii. restricted to types of institutions or
    areas of study
    viii. how do they go about advertising
    their program to prospective applicants?
    ix. whether the program is reciprocal,
    i.e., whether there is any reasonably
    parallel program that takes Canadians
    to other countries?
  9. Why are such scholarships offered? i.e., what
    is/are the motivation(s) or policy objective(s) behind
    offering awards or scholarships?
    This interview protocol is designed to elicit certain
    types of common information. We are likely to get
    our best results if we are open to hearing, within the
    frame of relevance, what is on people’s minds. So we
    should aim to retain a focus on obtaining answers to
    all questions while providing adequate opportunity for
    our interviewees to tell us freely what’s on their minds.
    It may take between 45 and 60 minutes to complete
    an interview.
    I. Introduction
  10. Very briefly introduce yourself and mention
    the other team members
  11. Describe the project very briefly and that it’s
    on behalf of CBIE with DFAIT support
    a. Examining what federal government
    departments and provincial/territorial
    governments are doing
    in international scholarships
    b. The goals and strategies underpinning these
    scholarship and awards programs for study
    in Canada, e.g., international relations,
    international development, labour force
    development, immigration, trade, sci/tech
    strategies, etc.
  12. Indicate project seeks recommendations to increase
    program effectiveness and impact (e.g., through
    coordination, harmonization, focus, direction,
    more or less duplication, a directory etc.)
  13. Project will include environmental scan through
    literature/web-site review of policy statements,
    impact studies, statistics, etc., and interviews such
    as this one with key players
  14. As an interviewee, they will automatically be sent
    a copy of the final report.
    18 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
  15. Is there an overall strategy? Is a strategy explicitly
    articulated? [If so, get a copy or the web-reference]
    a. Has any of this changed at all over the lifetime
    of the program?
  16. How successful is the scholarship program at
    achieving this objective/these objectives? How
    do you know/what is the evidence? (e.g. statistics,
    anecdotal, empirical or other measures/assessments
    of deliverables)
  17. Have there been any major challenges in the
    delivery of the program or the achievement of
    the objectives? Has the program been modified
    to overcome such challenges? Are there still
  18. What is most successful about your program?
    What’s working well? [this is really just a prompt to
    get the things that are working well, to help us start
    to identify best practices]
  19. Is there anything you would recommend to make
    your program more successful in achieving its
    objectives? [this is to start to identify problems,
    things that could be done better, to help move
    us towards recommendations]
  20. Thinking now beyond just your program to
    other programs that are offered by Canadian
    governments or agencies
    a. Do you currently need to coordinate in any way
    with any of those programs? [This can be both
    about the mechanics of the program, but also
    about general alignment of strategy/objectives/
    b. Is there any way in which your program/their
    program would be better if there were more
    c. What kind of coordination would be best?
    II. B. General/strategy Questions:
  21. Where do you think Canada could be doing more
    to increase the attractiveness of Canadian education
    to international students? How could this be
    achieved? Specifically how do scholarships or other
    types of awards play a role?
  22. What can we learn from what other countries do?
    [if they do not know anything about what other
    countries do, that’s a useful fact to just record]
  23. Do you compete (intentionally or otherwise) in
    any way with other programs in Canada for the
    best students?
  24. What do you think Canada’s goals currently are
    with regard to attracting international students?
  25. What do you think Canada’s goals should be with
    regard to attracting international students? [these
    questions are prompts to get them to talk in some
    relevant way about goals]
  26. Do we have the right strategies in place to achieve
    either our current goals or what you think our
    goals should be?
    a. What is successful?
    b. What is not so successful/should be changed?
    c. Why?
  27. Where does international rank overall for you
    against other types of competing priorities
    in scholarships and financial assistance, since
    resources are limited?
  28. Just suppose — dreaming now — that there was
    all the money in the world and no restrictions.
    What would your dream scholarship/award
    program’s elements be to attract international
    students to Canada?
    III. Other/free form Questions and
    Without wandering into irrelevancy, this is a place to
    tailor a bit more to the specific interviewee and also to
    follow interesting leads from what they may have said
    Thank you very much!
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 19
    Appendix B
    List of People / Organizations interviewed
    Interviews were conducted between March and June 2011.
    Position titles are accurate as of the date of interview.
    Professor Neil Gold, former Vice-President Academic
    and Provost, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario
    Dr. Arvind Gupta, President and CEO, Mitacs Inc.,
    Vancouver, British Columbia; Professor of Computer
    Science, University of British Columbia
    Dr. Alan Harrison, Vice-President Academic and Provost,
    University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
    Dr. Michael K. Hawes, CEO, Foundation for Educational
    Exchange between Canada and the USA, and Executive
    Director, Canada-US Fulbright Fellowships Program,
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Jennifer Humphries, Vice-President, Membership and
    Scholarships, CBIE, Ottawa, Ontario
    Gordana Krcevinac, Director, Research Training Portfolio,
    and Sylvie Paquette, Manager, Policy and International
    Collaboration, SSHRCC, Ottawa, Ontario
    Robert Laliberté, Directeur général, Association
    internationale d’études québécoises, Québec
    Dr. André Lapierre, Vice-Doyen, Faculté des Arts,
    Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario
    Marc LeBrun, Director General, Canada Student
    Loan Program, and Micheline Nehmé, Director,
    Accountability and International Academic Mobility,
    HRSDC, Ottawa, Ontario
    John Manning, Senior Policy Analyst, Council of Ontario
    Universities; former Director of International at Ministry
    of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario,
    Toronto, Ontario
    Dr. John Milloy, Minister of Training, Colleges and
    Universities, Ontario, at HEQCO conference, Toronto,
    May 19, 2011
    Dr. Lalu Mansinha, Professor Emeritus, University
    of Western Ontario, and Academic Director, OntarioMaharashtra-Goa exchange, London, Ontario
    Dr. Randall Martin, Executive Director, British Columbia
    Council for International Education (BCCIE), Vancouver,
    British Columbia
    Claude Bibeau, Deputy Director of Policy and Planning,
    and Aline Brault, Senior Program Manager, Scholarships
    Program, International Education and Youth, DFAIT,
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Isabelle Blain, Vice-President, Research Grants and
    Scholarships, NSERC, Ottawa, Ontario
    Dr. Gilles Breton, Associate Vice-President Academic
    (International), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario;
    formerly at Université Laval, Québec City, Québec
    Paul Brennan, Vice-President, International Partnerships,
    ACCC, Ottawa, Ontario
    Dr. Eddy Campbell, President and Vice-Chancellor,
    University of New Brunswick; former Interim President
    and Vice-Chancellor, Memorial University
    of Newfoundland, Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Dr. Thomas Chase, Provost designate, University
    of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan
    Robin Ciceri, President of the Research University
    Council of British Columbia (RUCBC), Vancouver,
    British Columbia; Former Deputy Minister of Advanced
    Education, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Paul Davidson, President, Gail Bowkett, Associate
    Director, International Relations Division, and Robert
    White, Assistant Director, Partnership Programs Division,
    AUCC, Ottawa, Ontario
    Dr. Sheila Embleton, former Vice-President Academic
    and Provost, York University, Toronto, Ontario, and
    former President, Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute,
    Calgary, Alberta and New Delhi, India
    Cristina Frias, Executive Director, International Council
    of Canadian Studies, Ottawa, Ontario
    Dr. Chad Gaffield, President, Social Sciences and
    Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
    Ontario; Professor of History, University of Ottawa,
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Michelle Gagnon, Research Director, and Alana Yuill,
    Director International Relations, CIHR, Ottawa, Ontario;
    Ms. Yuill was formerly at AUCC, Ottawa, Ontario
    20 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    Karen McBride, President and CEO, CBIE, Ottawa,
    Jason Naud, Conseiller en affaires internationales,
    Bureau de recrutement des étudiantes et étudiants
    étrangers, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du
    Sport, Gouvernement du Québec, Québec
    Dr. Bonnie Neuman, Vice-President Students, Dalhousie
    University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Dr. Gilles Patry, CEO Canada Foundation for Innovation;
    former President of the University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
    Darcy Rollins, Director, International Education,
    Government of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba
    John Shalagan, Samantha Anderson, David Cohen,
    Jane Cousens, and Aamir Taayeb, Postsecondary
    Education Division, Ministry of Training, Colleges
    and Universities, Toronto, Ontario
    Dr. Michael Stevenson, President Emeritus, Simon
    Fraser University, Burnaby, Vancouver, and Surrey,
    British Columbia
    Dr. Vianne Timmons, President and Vice-Chancellor,
    University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan
    Ann Weston, Director, Special Initiatives Division,
    Training and Awards Program, International
    Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa
    Yuen Pau Woo, President, Asia Pacific Foundation
    of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia
    Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute, Calgary, Alberta and
    New Delhi, India
    Participants and presenters at the Metropolis
    conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, March 24-26,
    Several international students studying in Canada,
    as well as one prospective international student,
    who prefer to remain anonymous
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 21
    Appendix C
    Scholarships and Awards Open to International
    Students (with source)
    Foreign Affairs and international Trade Canada Programs
    Canada-Brazil Awards for Joint Research Projects
    — Supports research oriented research projects
    between Canadian and Brazilian institutions, supports
    exchanges of PhD students in the context of teambased bilateral research projects.
    Canada-CARICOM Leadership Scholarships
    Program — Undergraduate and graduate student
    exchange agreements facilitated through institutional
    collaborations between Canadian and Carribean
    institutions. Graduate students hosted for five to
    six months with $10,000 scholarships, college and
    undergraduate students hosted for four months with
    $7,500 scholarships.
    Canada-CARICOM Virtual University Scholarship
    Program (CCVUSP) — Five selected certificate
    programs, delivered entirely at a distance, to learners
    from CARICOM countries. This pilot program is in
    partnership with the Canadian Virtual University (CVU),
    and in cooperation with University of the West Indies
    Open Campus (UWIOC)]
    Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship Program
    (CCSP) — Program for graduate students to undertake
    short-term study or research. For four month terms
    receive $7,500 or five to six months terms receive
    $10,000. Students must remain full-time students and
    be from a Commonwealth country in Asia and the
    Pacific or Africa.
    Canada-China Scholars’ Exchange Program —
    Scholarships to full-time, permanent teaching or
    research staff, master’s or doctoral graduates as well
    as non-academics in China holding senior professional
    Equal Opportunities Scholarship Program,
    Canada-Chile — Program for Chilean citizens residing
    in Chile at the time of application who have completed
    an undergraduate or master’s degree for continued
    studies at the masters or doctoral level respectively.
    Post-Doctoral Research Fellowships — One-year
    post-doctoral fellowships valued at $36,500 for
    research at recognized public Canadian universities
    and affiliated research institutes. Fellows must be from
    one of the eligible countries under the Government of
    Canada Awards, Commonwealth Scholarship Program
    or Canada-Mexico Awards.
    The following programs are funded by Foreign
    Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) and
    are available for international students and faculty
    members for study or to conduct research in Canada.
    The Canadian Bureau for International Education is
    the scholarship program administrator. Information on
    these and other programs offered by the Government
    of Canada is available at:
    Canada-Chile Leadership Exchange Scholarships
    — Undergraduate and graduate student exchange
    agreements facilitated through institutional
    collaborations between Canadian and Chilean
    institutions. Graduate students hosted for five to
    six months with $10,000 scholarships, college and
    undergraduate students hosted for four months with
    $7,500 scholarships.
    Canada-Haiti Scholarships Initiative — Shortterm studies and study tour in Canada, for college,
    professional, undergraduate and graduate students
    and faculty; part of a broader time-limited package of
    educational aid to post-earthquake Haiti
    Canada-Haiti Academic Projects Scholarship
    — Joint Canada-Haiti academic projects to build the
    capacity of academic institutions, provide opportunities
    for Haitians to resume their studies and enhance the
    skill sets required to encourage prosperity in the region.
    Canada-Haiti Virtual University Scholarship
    Program (CHVUSP) — Eight selected certificate
    programs, delivered entirely at a distance, to learners
    from Haiti. This pilot program is in partnership with the
    Canadian Virtual University.
    Emerging Leaders in the Americas Program
    (ELAP) — Program for undergraduate and graduate
    students from South and Central America, Mexico
    and the Caribbean. Facilitated through institutional
    collaborations and student exchange agreements
    between Canadian and regional institutions. Recipients
    remain registered as full time students in their
    home institution during this exchange. Graduate
    students hosted for five to six months with $10,000
    scholarships, college and undergraduate students
    hosted for four months with $7,500 scholarships.
    22 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    Granting Council (CIHR/NSERC/
    SSHRCC) Programs
    Vanier Doctoral Fellowships — about one third go
    to international students, 500 in total at any one time;
    $50,000 tax-free per year for three years; nominated by
    institution; requires also “leadership qualities”; purpose
    clearly stated as “to attract and retain world-class
    doctoral students and to brand Canada as a global
    centre of excellence in research and higher learning”.
    Trudeau Foundation Scholarships (humanities
    and social sciences only) — open to both domestic
    and international; requires high academic achievement,
    ability “to engage in lively exchange with other
    researchers and scholars”, intent to work in one or
    more of four theme areas, and “desire to contribute
    to public dialogue around those themes”; up to
    $180,000, intended as $40,000 tuition and living plus
    $20,000 travel per year, for three years, with possibility
    of additional post-doctoral year.
    Banting Post-Doctoral Fellowships — $70,000
    per year for two years; purpose is “to build worldclass research capacity by recruiting top-tier Canadian
    and international postdoctoral researchers at an
    internationally competitive level of funding; 70 per
    year awarded.
    International Council for Canadian
    Studies Programs (Supported by DFAIT)
    ICCS Graduate Student Thesis/Dissertation —
    $3500 to spend four to six weeks doing research
    at a Canadian institution. For Canadian Studies only.
    Award approximately seven per year.
    ICCS Doctoral Student Research Awards — Awards
    to enable doctoral students to come to Canada for
    research. Research must be related to Canada, social
    sciences and humanities only. 33 awarded in 2009-10
    and 45 awarded in 2011-12.
    ICCS Canadian Studies Post-doctoral Fellowship
    — For Canadian Studies only. Approximately one per
    year to come to a Canadian institution for teaching or
    research and one per year for a Canadian to go abroad.
    Other Programs
    Canadian Francophonie Scholarship Program
    (CFSP) — This Canadian International Development
    Agency scholarship program designed to build
    institutional capacities by training nationals of 37
    developing countries of La Francophonie” as well
    as “to strengthen Canada’s ties to these countries”.
    Administered by AUCC since 2006.
    Mitacs Globalink internships — Specific to India,
    small cohort with China, pilot with Brazil, a bit over
    200 in total in 2011. Funding source is Mitacs/Industry
    Canada, leveraged with each participating provincial
    OGS Ontario Graduate Scholarship — 3000 in
    total of which 90 are for internationals; $5000 per
    term for maximum of $15,000 per year.
    Québec Merit Fellowships for Foreign Students
    — Available in three categories. Merit Fellowships
    for Doctoral Studies are a maximum three years
    with extension of 12 months. Merit Fellowships for
    Post-Doctoral Research are a maximum 12 months and
    non renewable. Merit Fellowships for Study or Scientific
    Research Visits are a maximum of four months and non
    Students for Development (Canadian
    International Development Agency) — Number
    and amount of support is variable. According to what
    the university submitted and what got approved.
    Trillium Doctoral Fellowship — $40,000 per year
    for four years; 75 in total (with a specific number
    assigned to each institution); purpose is “to attract
    the best qualified international students to Ontario
    for PhD studies”, in support of the “Open Ontario”
    Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships CBIERESEARCH SERIES 23
    Appendix D
    Documents and websites reviewed or consulted
    Facts and Figures. Immigration Overview. Permanent
    and Temporary Residents. Citizenship and Immigration
    Digital Library [CD]. 2009.
    IMAGINE: Canada as a leader in international
    education. How can Canada benefit from the Australian
    experience? Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Zainab
    Kizilbash, unpublished manuscript, 2011, Faculty of
    Education, York University.
    Initiative gouvernement-réseaux de l’éducation en
    matière de recrutement d’étudiantes et d’étudiants
    étrangers. Gouvernement du Québec cabinet,
  29. See:
    Intention after Graduation: A Survey of International
    Students in Canada from P.R. China. Asia Pacific
    Foundation of Canada, 2010.
    International Academic Mobility Experiences for
    Canadian Social Science and Humanities. Jane Knight
    for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council,
  30. See:.
    International Migration: The Emergence of the Mobile
    Student. Edited by Chedly Belkhodja. Canadian Diversity
    / Diversité Canadienne. Volume 8:5 Winter 2011.
    International Student Mobility: Patterns and Trends.
  31. [Observatory of Borderless Higher Education]
    A New Direction for the Canada – India Relationship.
    Foreign Policy for Canada’s Tomorrow, 5). Ryan M.
    Touhey. Canadian International Council, 2009. See:
    Our Diverse Cities: British Columbia. Edited by Daniel
    Hiebert. Number 8, Spring 2011. Citizenship and
    Immigration Canada, The Metropolis Project.
    Planning to Work in Canada? An essential workbook
    for newcomers. Citizenship and Immigration Canada,
    Québec-France. Portrait d’une relation en mouvement.
    Ministère des Relations internationales, Gouvernement
    du Québec, 2002.
    State of the Nation 2010: Imagination to Innovation:
    Building Canadian Paths to Prosperity. Science,
    Advantage Canada: Building a Strong Economy for
    Canadians. Department of Finance, Government of
    Canada, 2006. See:
    An Analysis of Flagship Scholarship Programs – Policy,
    Communication, and Performance in International
    Comparison. Mauro Mondino for the Illuminate
    Consulting Group, 2011.
    Brand Canada – Beauty of nature or nature of beauty?
    Nation Branding, 2010. See: http://nation-branding.
    Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing
    the World to Canada: An International Education
    Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories.
    A Response to the Council of the Federation from
    Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Education and
    Immigration, June 2011. See:
    Canadians Abroad: Canada’s Global Asset. Asia Pacific
    Foundation of Canada, 2011. See: www.asiapacific.
    Canadian Overseas Schools: A Unique Approach to the
    Export of Canadian Education, Asia Pacific Foundation
    of Canada, Vancouver, May 2011.
    Compete to Win. Department of Industry, Government
    of Canada, 2008. See:
    Doing Business in India: Success, Failure and the
    Prospects for Canada. (Foreign Policy for Canada’s
    Tomorrow, 10). Douglas Goold, Canadian International
    Council, 2010. See:
    The Economic Impact of International Education in
    British Columbia. Roslyn Kunin for British Columbia
    Council for International Education, 2011.
    The Economic Impact of International Education
    in Canada. Roslyn Kunin & Associates for Foreign
    Affairs and International Trade, Canada, 2009. See:
    24 CBIERESEARCH SERIES Canada’s International Education Strategy: Focus on Scholarships
    Technology and Innovation Council, 2010. See: www.
    Student Mobility and the Internationalization of Higher
    Education: National policies and strategies from
    six world regions. Edited by Rajika Bhandari, Raisa
    Belyavina and Robert Gutierrez. A Project Atlas Report.
    The Institute of International Education, New York.
  32. [chapter on Canada is pp 25-30.]
    Studying in Québec. For international foreign students
    wishing to study in Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation,
    du Loisir et du Sport, Gouvernement du Québec. 2008
    World of Learning: Canadian Post-Secondary Students
    and the Study Abroad Experience, Canadian Bureau for
    International Education, 2009.
    [Government of Manitoba]
    [list of Canadian Curriculum Schools Abroad]
    [Saskatchewan Graduate Retention Program]
    [Canada Council for the Arts]
    [Imagine Education in Canada]
    [Fonds québécois de recherche sur la nature
    et les technologies]
    [Manitoba Tuition Fee Income Tax Rebate]
    [International Council of Canadian Studies]
    [University of Ottawa]
    [Office franco-québécois de la jeunesse]
    [Foreign Affairs and International Trade – International
    [Edge Interactive]
    [defunct Canadian Education Centre]
    [World Education Services]

What is the easiest student loan to get?

If you have a low credit score, the best loan option for you is federal student loans. These loans are funded by the federal government and are easy to apply for. No matter what your credit score is, you will be eligible as long as you apply. To apply for these loans, fill out the FAFSA.

Once you’ve exhausted federal options, compare offers from multiple private lenders to find the lowest interest rate. Private student loans can be a good option if:.

19‏/05‏/2020 – As a student with limited or no income and credit history, it’s not always easy to get private student loans without your parent’s help.

16‏/07‏/2020 – But if you’re considering a personal loan, qualifying and getting a decent interest rate isn’t necessarily simple, especially if you have poor credit or …

Don’t forget, with both federal and private student loans, you’ll have to pay back the money you borrow plus interest. Paying for college tip. With our private …

Find out how Sallie Mae’s student loans can help you cover up to 100% of your college and … Get a student loan for next semester. Applying is fast and easy.

Find out how you can get the right student loan to pay for your college expenses … planning for expenses is not an easy task” for the upcoming school year, says …

Many students need to get student loans, but may not have any credit or even bad credit. Click here for how to get a student loan with no or bad credit!\

– Do you need student loans, but have bad credit? … and Credible makes it easy to compare the lenders below without impacting your credit.

Figuring out how to pay for college can be overwhelming. From federal loans to private lenders, here’s what you need to know to find the best student loans.

The best private student loans will have interest rates of LIBOR + 2.0% or PRIME … Applying online is quick and easy and our knowledgeable Student Loan …

Discover Student Loans offers private loans with variable or fixed rates, zero fees and rewards. … Post-graduate professionals can get a private student loan to cover expenses while preparing for a medical … Easy Application Process.

26‏/06‏/2020 – Student grants and loans are intended for students who are studying at e.g. university college, university or … You can see your income limit in the decision you get from CSN. … Log in with e-ID, which is the fastest method.A:Students loans are quite easy to get via the federal loan program. However, they might not be as easy when trying to get a private loan. For federal loans, all

Compare these companies to find the best option for your needs. … While federal student loans should be your starting point for all student loan .


How do I choose the best student loan?

Picking the right student loan can make a big difference when it comes time to repay your debt from college. If you’re unsure what type of loan …How We Chose The Best Student Loan Companies. To choose the best student loans, we compared more than 20 nationwide private student loan lenders. The …

Choosing the right student loan in 2020 can be hard. Learn about your student loan options, how to compare private student loans to federal student loans, and …

Private loans can help students fill gaps in funding. Yet private student loans have drawbacks compared with federal student loans. These include: Credit-based eligibility. Private student loan terms will depend on the applicant’s credit. Without a creditworthy co-signer, many students may not be able to get approved or may only be able to get a high interest rate. Risk for co-signers. Co-signers take on debt and risk when they add their names to private student loans. Co-signing could affect one’s ability to qualify for other loans, and if the student isn’t able to make a payment, it could hurt the co-signer’s credit. In some cases, the co-signer will be responsible for the debt if the student dies or is permanently disabled. Potentially higher interest rates. In some cases, private student loans may offer lower interest rates than federal student loans, but not always. Interest rate accrual. With subsidized federal loans, the government will pay the interest while you’re in school

Always start with federal student loans. Then compare private student loan lenders to find the best student loan options for you. You can easily …Refinancing your student debt could save you cash. Here’s how to go about it right. (iStock). Refinancing your student loans can come with a 

Depending on the type of student loan you chose, the interest rate will begin to … if you apply at the right time for the right loans and agree to the right conditions.

Choosing the best student loans for your financial situation requires a basic understanding of the pros and cons of different loan options.

1: Compare Student Loans. Like we already said, our student loan comparison tool is the first step you should take along the path to choosing a lender and loan …

Federal student loans offer advantages many private loans don’t: low fixed interest rates, … You (the parent) can choose to put off payments until the student you 

Understand the different ways to borrow money to help pay for college. Compare private student loans and federal loans. Select student loan options best 


How do I choose the best student loan?

How to choose a student loan

  1. Know how much you need. Before looking at your student loan options, you want to know how much money you need to borrow. …
  2. Fill out the FAFSA. …
  3. Research federal loan options. …
  4. Research private loan options. …
  5. Compare options and costs. …
  6. Apply for student loans. …
  7. Sign a Master Promissory Note (MPN) …
  8. Know when your first payment is due.

Comparing your options helps you find the loan best suited for your needs. … Student LoansChoosing a loan that’s right for you …

Use federal student loans first, then compare private student loan options to fill any gap. See ratings and interest rates for SoFi, Sallie Mae and others.

‘Private student loans typically come with a fixed monthly payment and a fixed or variable interest rate, and you may be able to delay repayment until after you …

It’s best to exhaust all of your federal student loan options before even considering private student loansRates for federal loans issued between July 1, 2020 …

Compare private student loan lenders. Easily compare rates, terms, and benefits to find the lowest possible interest rates.

Comparing your options helps you find the loan best suited for your needs. … For most borrowers, federal student loans are the best option. When you start to …

Find your best student loans. Here are the top lenders of 2020! … its own set of terms, rates and eligibility requirements that vary, unlike a typical federal loan.

Understand the different ways to borrow money to help pay for college. Compare private student loans and federal loans. Select student loan options best for …

 The best federal education loans are the Direct Subsidized Loan. This loan has subsidized interest, fixed interest rates, and low fees. Next are …

Federal student loans offer advantages many private loans don’t: low fixed interest rates, income-based repayment, forgiveness, and postponement options.


Which type of student loan is the best ?

The best federal education loans are the Direct Subsidized Loan. This loan has subsidized interest, fixed interest rates, and low fees. Next are Direct Unsubsidized Loans, followed by the PLUS Loan.01‏/07‏/2020

These loans so bad, you should only consider them as an absolute last resort.

  • The Payday Loan. …
  • The Car Title Loan. …
  • The Tax Preparer Loan. …
  • The Credit Card Cash Advance. …
  • The Casino Loan. …
  • The Installment Loan. …
  • The Private Student Loan. …
  • The Pawnshop Loan.

7.64% average fixed rate for 10-year private student loan. Private student loan rates can be lower; variable rates start at 3.95% to 4.25% APR, while fixed rates start around 5.21% to 5.49% APR. On the higher end, private student loan rates can range up to 14.05% to 14.28%

Choosing the best student loans for your financial situation requires a basic understanding of the pros and cons of different loan options.

It’s best to exhaust all of your federal student loan options before even considering private student loansRates for federal loans issued between July 1, 2020 …

08‏/07‏/2020 – Compare private student loan lenders. Easily compare rates, terms, and benefits to find the lowest possible interest rates.’06‏/07‏/2020 – Click here to discover the best private student loans. … Private school loans offer flexible interest rate options and repayment terms, and …

If you need to secure funding for college, you have two options: federal and private student loans. Federal student loans have better borrower …

Understand the different ways to borrow money to help pay for college. Compare private student loans and federal loans. Select student loan options best for …

Federal student loans offer advantages many private loans don’t: low fixed interest rates, income-based repayment, forgiveness, and postponement options.

A subsidized loan is your best option. With these … Here are the types of student loans. (Keep in mind that not all students are eligible for every loan.) Open All

With rates as low as 3.74%* (3.77% APR), our Palmetto Assistance Loan is one of the best student loan options for SC students. Our private loans cover tuition …