The impact of Canada's new immigration act on Chinese independent immigrants.
Subject: Chinese Canadians (Emigration and immigration)
Immigration policy (Research)
Emigration and immigration law (Influence)
Author: Shi, Yan
Pub Date: 06/22/2004
Publication: Name: Canadian Journal of Urban Research Publisher: Institute of Urban Studies Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Social sciences Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2004 Institute of Urban Studies ISSN: 1188-3774
Issue: Date: Summer, 2004 Source Volume: 13 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 310 Science & research
Product: Product Code: 9103700 Immigration & Emigration NAICS Code: 92812 International Affairs
Geographic: Geographic Scope: Canada Geographic Name: Canada Geographic Code: 1CANA Canada
Legal: Statute: Canada. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002
Accession Number: 115498149
Full Text: Abstract

Canada's new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) took effect on June 28, 2002. This paper asks a counterfactual question: "How many of the independent immigrants admitted to Canada between 1995 and 2000 would have qualified for admission under the new entry rules?" Both Chinese and all non-Chinese highly skilled arrivals circa 1995-2000 are reassessed under IRPA, with the aid of the Longitudinal Immigration Data Base (IMDB). Acceptance rates for both Chinese and all non-Chinese immigrants are calculated, and the distributions of marks, by entry criteria, are analyzed in order to identify the type of applicants most likely to be accepted into Canada under the new system.

Keywords: Immigration Selection


La nouvelle Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des refugies (LIPR) est entree en vigueur au Canada le 28 juin 2002. A l'aide de la Banque de donnees sur l'immigration (BDIM), les travailleurs qualifies en provenance de la Chine et des autres pays, arrives au Canada au cours de la periode allant de 1995 a 2000, sont reevalues en fonction des nouveaux criteres de selection de la LIPR pour determiner combien d'entre eux seraient admis. Les taux d'acceptation des immigrants chinois et des autres sont calcules et la distribution des points par critere d'admission est analysee afin d'etablir le profil du candidat le plus susceptible d'etre admis en vertu de la nouvelle Loi.

Mots cles : Immigration, Candidature, Selection

1. Introduction

Canada's new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) took effect on June 28, 2002. The outstanding feature of the new Act is the modification of the selection system for skilled workers. With the restructuring of its points distribution, coupled with a higher pass mark (75 out of 100) and a retroactive clause, this new Act has been criticized as too restrictive and unjust by certain groups of independent applicants. In spite of the criticism there has been no formal study of the Act. This is largely owing to a lack of relevant data. (1)

This paper seeks to fill this gap in knowledge by measuring the hypothetical impact of the 2002 IRPA on an actual set of past successful independent applicants. It focuses on Chinese independent applicants by dividing the total immigration applicant population into those from the People's Republic of China (hereafter, referred to as China) and all other countries. The rationale for this approach is threefold. First, China has become the major source country of immigration for Canada since the mid-1990s. Second, the restructuring of the points distribution under the new screening system is considered to put future Chinese applicants at a greater disadvantage vis-a-vis immigrants from other countries because of the more stringent language requirements. Third, the retroactive clause in the 2002 Act appears to be biased against Chinese applicants, given the large backlog of applicants from this country.

A counterfactual methodology is developed to consider the likely impact of the new Act on the level and composition of skilled workers admitted to the country. Using data from the Longitudinal Immigration Data Base (IMDB), I "retest" Chinese and non-Chinese highly-skilled arrivals between 1995 and 2000 under the IRPA's more restrictive points system to calculate acceptance rates and identify the profile of a successful applicant.

The remainder of this paper is divided into four sections. Section 2 offers a brief history of recent Canadian immigration policy; Section 3 discusses the methodology and the IMDB data sources; Section 4 reports the test results; and Section 5 presents some conclusions and avenues for further research.

2. Canada's Modern Immigration Policy

Modern Canadian immigration policy began in the 1960s, with the advent of the "points" assessment system for the admission of independent immigrants. The 1978 Immigration Act codified these rules and provided for the admission of family members and refugees as well as the economically assessed. Between 1967 and 1986, the points system was considered a success in addressing a short-run labour market shortage. After 1986, Canadian immigration policy was modified to focus on long-term demographic goals, as Canada's fertility rate declined. Furthermore, two new immigrant entry classes were devised: the business class, which included self-employed workers and entrepreneurs, and the investment class. These two entry classes were created, in response to those who viewed Canadian immigration policy as a tool for long-term economic development. By the late 1980s, then, immigration was seen not only as a way of attracting skilled workers but as a mechanism to attract capital, meet Canada's international humanitarian commitments and increase the general rate of population growth.

By the early 1990s, family class and refugee applicants received priority under Canada's immigration targets. This reduced the economically-assessed class to a residual category. A revival of the economic entry class in the mid-1990s did not produce the desired economic results as immigrants continued to perform poorly in the domestic labour market (Shi, 2003). Thus, new entry criteria were devised in an effort to halt this lagging performance and the IRPA was enacted with controversial retroactive provisions and higher entry criteria (CIC, 2002).

Initial public reaction to the new Act did not focus on its more stringent entry criteria but on its retroactive clause. This controversial retroactive clause stated that:

Critics emphasized that the retroactive clause was intended to "cull" the backlog of more than 500,000 immigrant applications while collecting non-refundable application fees. (2) There were also substantive changes beyond the retroactive clause. A close inspection of the old and new system reveals six revised factors in the new points system. The pass mark, set at 75 out of a maximum 100 points is the highest in the history of Canadian immigration policy. Particular changes in the selection grid are as follows:

Education. The maximum points available increases from 16 to 25, and are awarded as before according to the combination of years of schooling and highest degree obtained. A greater premium is now assigned to an applicant with a post-graduate degree or a trade certificate.

Work Experience. The total number of points available is reduced from 36 to 21. Less emphasis is placed on specific occupations, by expanding the National Occupation Classification List that specifies relevant work experience. (3) More points are now awarded for applicants with only one (15) or two (17) years of work experience. The latter change was designed to attract younger workers who may have higher levels of education but fewer years of experience.

Official Language. The maximum points available increases from 15 to 24. Oral comprehension is added to the language proficiency assessment to complement the traditional reading, writing and speaking skills. Proof of language proficiency as measured by IELTS (International English Language Testing System) and CELPIP (Canadian International Language Proficiency Index Program) must now be provided. A maximum of 16 points is awarded for knowledge of the first official language and up to eight for proficiency in the second official language.

Age. The maximum number of points remains the same at ten. Under the new rules, applicants aged 21-49 are awarded a maximum of ten points and two points are deducted for every year under 21 or over 49. Applicants between the ages of 50 and 53, therefore, are still able to obtain some points, whereas they previously received zero.

Arranged Employment. As before, ten points are awarded under the new rules for a confirmed offer of permanent employment.

Adaptability. Under the old system, a maximum of 23 points could, in theory, be earned from this factor. Five points were awarded to applicants who had a close relative in Canada; eight points were given to virtually everyone; and the remaining ten points could be awarded at the applicant's interview according to the immigration official's subjective evaluation. However, since at least 70 points in total were required to pass, at least 60 were required before adaptability was considered. Under the new rules, points have been reduced to ten and are awarded according to the study or work experience in Canada of the applicant's spouse and if there is an existing family relationship in Canada.

The presumed goal of these assessment changes is to open the skilled worker category to a broader range of applicants with the set of human capital attributes and flexible skills needed to drive Canada's economic growth (CIC, 2002). This entails the desire to attract younger, more highly educated workers, with greater language proficiency in at least one of Canada's two official languages. It will take years to assess how effectively this goal has been met. This paper adopts the more modest goal of determining the number of recent applicants, accepted under the old system, who would have been excluded under the new IRPA assessment system.

3. Methodology

I employ a counterfactual methodology by posing the question: "How many of the independent immigrants admitted to Canada between 1995 and 2000 would have qualified for admission under the new entry rules?" To answer this question, the Longitudinal Immigration Data Base (IMDB) is used. It contains individual-level data that combines information obtained from the landing records (Landed Immigrant Data System or LIDS) and selected fields from the immigrant's personal income tax return. It initially covered the period from 1980 to 1995 and has been updated annually since 1996. The latest IMDB data set available when the paper was written was for the year 2000. The analysis is based on three types of IMDB data: a) demographic data, such as age, marital status, mother tongue and country of last permanent residence; b) program data, including the immigration entry category, principal applicant code and employment status; and c) personal attributes such as years of schooling, level of education and the applicant's self-assessed knowledge of an official language. The test is conducted as follows. First, I apply the IRPA points system to assess both the Chinese and all non-Chinese highly skilled arrivals between 1995 and 2000 (the latest data available) and calculate their total marks. Next I calculate the acceptance rates for both populations.

Before specifying the assessment equation, some important data limitations must be mentioned. First, there are six factors employed by the points system but only five appear in this test. The adaptability factor is excluded, since the IMDB does not reveal sufficient information to render an evaluation of the study and work experience of a principal applicant and the accompanying spouse or to determine whether the applicant has a close relative in Canada. Consequently, this factor, with a maximum value often points, is temporarily ignored, and the pass mark is artificially set at 65 out of 90, instead of 75 out of 100 in order to maintain consistency. The test, therefore, is upward-biased, in terms of the estimated acceptance rate. Second, I assume that English is the first official language for all applicants, including immigrants who landed in Quebec where French is the first official language. (4)

Third, all factors, except for the official language criterion, are coded objectively according to the credit distribution indicated by the IRPA assessment system. The information contained in the IMDB on official language ability is based on an immigrant's self-assessment and, hence, does not contain the in-depth information used under the IRPA points system. Thus, I am forced to subjectively code the immigrant's language ability, based on education and work experience. In the first instance, those whose native language is either English or French are automatically awarded the maximum points for official language. For the remainder of the 1995-2000 applicant population, I have inferred language ability as explained in the Appendix. Fourth, while the IMDB micro-records are for all immigrants, the total mark for some immigrants is missing because some values in the immigrant's record and/or other information required to complete the algorithm are missing. (For example, the official language assessment is not reported when some immigrants do not state which official language they are able to speak and their native language is neither English nor French.)

My targeted subjects are landed principal applicants who entered under the skilled worker class between 1995 and 2000. The acceptance rate is simply given as:

Acceptance Rate = Number of Observations with score [greater than or equal] 65 / Number of Observations

4. Findings

4.1 Acceptance Rates

Figure 1 contains comparisons of calculated acceptance rates. Three interesting results emerge. First, the acceptance rates of both populations are less than 50 % under the IRPA assessment regime, given a pass mark of 75/100 or, as in this simulation, 65/90. Second, the acceptance rate of the Chinese population under the counterfactual experiment decreased from 45.3% in 1995 to 39.2% in 2000, whereas the acceptance rate of the non-Chinese population increased from 21.6% in 1995 to 26.5% in 2000. Finally, despite the above trend, by 2000 the acceptance rate of the Chinese population was still greater than that of its non-Chinese counterpart.

4.2 Point Scores by Year

Figure 2 compares the mean scores awarded under the counterfactual assessment for each year under consideration. It indicates a convergence in the average points obtained by Chinese and non-Chinese immigrants. While the average points awarded to the Chinese population remained roughly the same at 59, they rose slightly for the non-Chinese population from 54.0 in 1995 to 56.5 in 2000.

4.3 Distribution of Point Scores

It is useful to compare the distribution of point scores over the entire period for both the Chinese and non-Chinese populations since there is a marked difference in the distribution (Figures 3 and 4). Among Chinese applicants, the distribution of scores is skewed to the right with the total marks clustering around the mean value and the low 70s. In contrast, the distribution for the non-Chinese population has a single spike at the mean value.


Taken together, about 40% of all assessed immigrants earned between 55 and 64 points. The results from isolating the performance of these "almost successful applicants" by assessment factor are displayed in Table 1. First, it is important to note that this marginal, 55-64 point group, only received three to four points for the language factor. This score is equivalent to only a basic language skill level in one official language. In addition, this group completely failed the employment assessment criterion since their average score was near zero. Therefore, it was the joint poor performance in language and employment that precluded a pass mark under the counterfactual assessment. In other words, these failed applicants would have needed to get at least 12 to 13 points in the language factor to offset the lack of a job offer in Canada.

4.4 Statistics for Variables of Interest

Tables 2 and 3 report the mean point scores by particular variables of interest. Inspection of these tables allows several conclusions about the effect of particular variables under the counterfactual assessment. First, the immigrant's marital status did not alter one's assessment under the counterfactual for either the Chinese or the non-Chinese population. (5) Next, it is clear that employment status is central to achieving a pass under the counterfactual test: the mean scores for the employed are greater than the pass mark of 65 for both populations. More important, the mean scores obtained by the unemployed applicants were ten points fewer than those points of the employed group. This ten-point gap is equal to the maximum points awarded for this factor.

Even given the fact that 96% of Chinese applicants claim they speak English, only 16% of English speakers in the Chinese population passed the counterfactual experiment, whereas those who speak only French or speak both languages did not pass the test at all. (6) In the non-Chinese population, about 16% of the immigrants who speak only English passed the IRPA test, and 2.5% of the immigrants who speak only French or speak both languages passed the test again.

Without a degree or diploma or having less than 13 years of schooling, a past successful applicant is no longer acceptable under the new IRPA admission rule. This conclusion holds for both the Chinese and non-Chinese immigrant populations. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that earning a master's degree or a Ph.D. will ensure that one passes the new test. (7)

4.5 Acceptance Rates Revisited

Having examined the distribution of scores and mean scores by particular variables of interest, an explanation of the time pattern for acceptance rates between 1995 and 2000 emerges. For Chinese immigrants, neither the age structure nor language composition changed but their work experience increased by 5% from 1995 to 2000. However, as noted, the educational qualifications of the more recent Chinese applicant population declined. Although Chinese immigrants with a bachelor's degree or above still dominated the newer entry vintage, the number of Chinese immigrants holding a master's degree or Ph.D. dropped by 20% between 1995 and 2000. In sum, negative change in educational levels led to the decline in the simulated Chinese immigrant acceptance rates over the period.

The non-Chinese immigrant population underwent many changes, with respect to their assessment criteria. First, the percentage of entrants who spoke English decreased by 4% between 1995 and 2000 and their work experience also declined by 5%. However, the average educational attainment for non-Chinese immigrant arrivals rose by 9% to 15% according to selected degrees. In other words, the educational level of the non-Chinese population improved greatly over the study period, raising the simulated acceptance rates for the non-Chinese population by 5%.

In sum, regardless of these trends, the Chinese immigrant population still had a higher acceptance rate than the non-Chinese immigrant population. This is because the Chinese applicants were younger, better educated, more likely to speak English, and had greater work experience than non-Chinese immigrants.

4.6 Adjustments to the Pass Mark

The extremely low estimated pass rates may well account for the downward revision in the pass mark to 67 by Immigration and Citizenship Canada in September 2003. When the pass mark in my experiment was adjusted to 57 out of 90, a 12% decrease, acceptance rates for Chinese and non-Chinese arrivals rose by about 20% and 15% respectively. Furthermore, Chinese immigrants still outperformed non-Chinese immigrants, although the acceptance rate of the Chinese population declined, whereas the acceptance rate of the non-Chinese population rose under the 57/90 pass mark. Figure 5 illustrates that no other major changes in the acceptance patterns appeared under this new regime.

5.0 Conclusion

The goal of this paper was to predict the impact of Canada's 2002 Immigration Act on post-2002 immigration applicants. Given the absence of data on these immigrants, a counterfactual methodology is applied to predict how many past successful applicants could have arrived under the new Act. The results indicate that the new points system would have had a substantial negative impact when applied to the recent (1995-2000) successful immigrant population. In fact, less than half of the successful Chinese immigrants and only a quarter of non-Chinese immigrants would have been able to enter Canada under the new criteria. In addition, the acceptance rate of Chinese immigrants would have declined over the test period, while the non-Chinese immigrants would have experienced a rise in their acceptance rates. Nonetheless, for the period under examination, the Chinese acceptance rate would have been greater than the non-Chinese acceptance rate. The strength of the Chinese immigrant pool is owing to their age, work experience and education endowments. This compensates for weak language skills and limited employment experience.

This may well account for the revision in the pass mark instituted by CIC in September 2003. By lowering the minimum number of points to gain admission, the acceptance rates for Chinese and non-Chinese applicants would increase by about 20% and 15% respectively. A sensitivity analysis of both Chinese and non-Chinese immigrants with total marks between 55 and 64 indicates that the key factors, which ensure a pass mark, are youth, a bachelor's degree, and a minimum of three years work experience.

This research can be extended in two ways. First, the language and adaptability factor assumptions must be refined, when better information becomes available. An expeditious way to overcome this data weakness is to retest the independent immigrants under the old selection system who would have successfully entered Canada under IRPA. A second direction for future research is to link those immigrants who passed and failed to their actual earnings. A comparison of the labour market outcomes for those who passed or failed the IRPA criteria will measure the efficacy of the new IRPA system.

Appendix: Points Assessment, Simulation for 1995-2000 Applicants

Points for the Educational Level and Years of School (YS): 25 points if Master or Ph.D. and YS [greater than or equal] 17 years of school; 22 if Bachelor/Diploma and YS [greater than or equal] 15; 20 if Bachelor/Diploma and YS = 14; 15 if Bachelor/Diploma and YS = 13; 12 if Diploma and YS = 12; 5 if High School; 0 if otherwise.

Points for Years of Work Experience: 15 points if 1 year of work experience; 17 if 2; 19 if 3; 21 if 4; 0 if 0.

Points for 1st Official Language Skills (8): 1st Official Language if English; 2nd if French; 1st + 2nd if both; 24 if Native Language is English and French.

1st Official Language:

16 if Native Language = English; 16 if Native Language [not equal to] English and some level of skills in English and Educational Level [greater than or equal] Bachelor and 0 to 3 Work Experience; 8 if [not equal to] English and English and [greater than or equal] Bachelor and 4 to 6 or if [not equal to] English and English and < Bachelor and 0 to 3; 2 if [not equal to] English and English and [greater than or equal] Bachelor and [greater than or equal] 7 or if [not equal to] English and English and < Bachelor and [greater than or equal] 4; 0 if otherwise.

2nd Official Language:

8 if Native Language = French; 8 if Native Language [not equal to] French and French and Educational Level [greater than or equal] Bachelor and 0 to 3 years of Work Experience; 8 if [not equal to] French and French and [greater than or equal] Bachelor and 4 to 6 or if [not equal to] French and French and < Bachelor and 0 to 3; 2 if [not equal to] French and French and [greater than or equal] Bachelor and [greater than or equal] 7 or if [not equal to] French and French and < Bachelor and [greater than or equal] 4; 0 if otherwise.

Points for Age: 10 points if 21 to 49 years old; 8 if 20 or 50; 6 if 19 or 51; 4 if 18 or 52; 2 if 17 or 53; 0 if < 17 or if > 53.

Points for Employment Status: 10 points if employed; 0 if otherwise,


(1) Harald Bauder performed an interesting statistical exercise using 1996 census data with the new immigration act and found out that only 26% of Canadian-born men and 20% of Canadian-born women over the age of 18 would qualify for entry to their own country under the new skilled-workers selection system (For more detailed information, please refer to "Most of Us Would Find We're Not Up to Standard for Canada," The Star, January 4, 2002). The test, however, while providing quite dramatic results, looked at the wrong population. Due to huge differences between Canadians and non-Canadian immigration applicants in most aspects, the test still could not explore what would happen to the actual skilled worker independent applicants under the new law.

(2) See, for instance, Jack Aubry, "Liberals Complain That Tougher Rules Could Cost Party Its Bedrock Immigrant Support," National Post (January 14, 2002), and "Second-Rate Procedures Scare Away First-Rate Newcomers," Vancouver Sun (December 29, 2001).

(3) Under the old system, one's occupation had to be in the General Occupation List in order to get the appropriate points ranging between 1 and 10. If this criterion was met, then one received the number of points (ranging from 1 to 18) listed under the column marked "ETF" for that occupation. ETF or the education/training factor referred to the length of training, education, and/or apprenticeship required to work in one's occupation in Canada (Guide for Independent Applicants, j). Finally, one received appropriate points corresponding to one's ETF and years of work experience, up to a maximum of 8 points.

(4) Only about 3% of Chinese immigrants chose Quebec, but this ratio is 14% for the non-Chinese population. As a result, the official language skills of non-Chinese immigrants may be underestimated.

(5) This is what was expected before the research was conducted. I ignored the adaptability factor, which involves information on the study and/or work experience of family members in Canada, due to limitations in the database. Marital status is not supposed to make a difference in total marks.

(6) What is remarkable is that knowing both official languages is not an advantage but a disadvantage to Chinese immigrants. One possible reason is that people have spent too much time learning languages and, hence, do not have enough work experience to qualify. Note that only 50 Chinese immigrants are bilingual for the whole period. Therefore, the above results may not be representative of the real situation facing Chinese immigrants and the results may differ with a larger population of French-speaking and bilingual Chinese immigrants.

(7) For the Chinese population, more than 90% of the successful applicants had at least a four-year bachelor's degree. However, the percentage of people holding a master's degree or Ph.D. in the Chinese population declined from 60% in 1995 to 40% in 2000. In the non-Chinese population, the majority of immigrants hold a certificate, diploma or bachelor's degree. However, the number of people in this group decreased by 13% and the number of people holding a bachelor's degree or a higher degree increased by 9% and 15% respectively from 1995 to 2000.

(8) With respect to the assessment of language skills, points are assigned under the simulation according to education and work experience. There is no doubt that people with a higher level of education have more knowledge of languages; however, the work experience determinant is arguable. In China, generally if people have been away from school for too long, their language abilities deteriorate even though they have gained greater work experience. This is due to the huge difference between Chinese and western cultures and a lack of an English- or French-speaking environment. Therefore, people with more work experience are given fewer points for this language factor. This coding procedure is not appropriate for assessing language ability of non-Chinese immigrants especially those from northwestern Europe.


Borjas, George J. 1991. Immigration policy, national origin, and immigrant skills: A comparison of Canada and the United States. NBER Working Paper, No. 3691.

De Silva, Arnold. 1997. Earnings of immigrant classes in the early 1980s in Canada: A reexamination. Canadian Public Policy 23(2): 179-202.

Citizenship and Immigration, Canada. 1998. Towards a new model of selection --Current selection criteria: Indicators of successful establishment? Ottawa: Economic policy and programs division.

Green, Alan G. and David A. Green. 1999. The economic goals of Canada's immigration policy: Past and present. Canadian Public Policy 25 (4): 425-51.

Green, Alan G. and David A. Green. 1995. Canadian immigration policy: The effectiveness of the points system and other instruments. Canadian Journal of Economics 28 (4b) (November): 1006-41.

Hum, Derek, and Wayne Simpson. 2002. Selectivity and immigration in Canada: A tale of two data sets. Paper presented at Melbourne Institute Labor Economics Seminar, March 1st.

Wanner, Richard A. 2001. Entry class and the earnings attainment of immigrants to Canada, 1980-1995. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association Research Committee on Social Stratification, Mannheim, Germany, April 26th-28th.

Shi, Yan. 2003. The Impact of Canada's Immigration Act on Chinese Independent Immigrants. RIIM Working Paper, No.03-07.
For a case that was filed before January 1st, 2002 and does not
   have a decision before June 28, 2002, it will be processed under
   the old rules until March 31, 2003. If that same case does not have
   a decision by March 31, 2003 then the case will be subject to the
   new rules with a pass mark of 70. Cases filed after January 1st,
   2002 will be subject to the new rules and a pass mark of 75.

Table 1: Average Points, Immigrants with a Total Points between
55 and 64

         Year             1995       1996      1997

CHINESE (count)            610       1445     1685
  Education              23.46      23.34    23.36
  Work Experience        20.42      20.34    20.57
  Official Language       3.28       3.55     3.05
  Age                       10       9.99     9.99
  Employment              0.02       0.02     0.01
TOTAL                    57.18      57.24    56.98

NON-CHINESE (count)       9500      12375    13955
  Education              21.84      22.06    22.18
  Work Experience         2035      20.37     2039
  Official Language       4.38       4.13     3.99
  Age                     9.92       9.95     9.95
  Employment              0.20       0.13     0.09
TOTAL                    56.69      56.64    56.60

         Year            1998       1999      2000

CHINESE (count)           1615       2820     2540
  Education              23.02      23.09    23.17
  Work Experience         2035      20.41    20.42
  Official Language       3.55       3.39     3.36
  Age                     9.99         10     9.99
  Employment              0.02       0.01     0.04
TOTAL                    56.93      56.90    56.98

NON-CHINESE (count)      10370      11050    14695
  Education              22.21      22.32    22.41
  Work Experience        20.35      20.29    20.35
  Official Language       4.16       4.22     4.01
  Age                     9.95       9.95     9.96
  Employment              0.11       0.11     0.10
TOTAL                    56.78      56.89    56.83

Table 2: Mean Point Score by Age, Marital and Employment Status

                         1995       1996      1997

  Marital Status
Married                  59.93      60.22    59.46
Unmarried                58.61      60.09    59.23
Married                  54.03      54.71    55.07
Unmarried                53.73      54.97    55.49
Employment Status
Employed                 67.17      57.55    50.50
Unemployed *                --      69.00    72.00
Employed                 67.03      66.89    66.57
Unemployed               56.07      55.42    55.83
  Age Distribution
<=17                        --         --       --
18-age-20                   --      42.00    38.33
21<=age<=49              59.68      60.27    59.45
50<=age<=53              44.67      51.50    51.23
53                       48.00      41.50    41.60
<=17                     26.07      26.00    23.42
18-age-20                35.86      36.73    36.64
21<=age<=49              54.28      55.09    55.49
50<=age<=53              49.52      48.45    50.19
>53                      42.17      42.86    42.20

                         1998       1999      2000

  Marital Status
Married                  58.39      58.62    59.12
Unmarried                58.88      60.04    59.88
Married                  55.50      56.48    56.50
Unmarried                55.27      56.03    56.40
Employment Status
Employed                 67.05      67.19    63.11
Unemployed *             58.77      59.12    53.00
Employed                 66.47      67.00    66.45
Unemployed               55.75      57.07    53.65
  Age Distribution
<=17                        --         --       --
18-age-20                   --      34.00       --
21<=age<=49              58.60      59.02    59.36
50<=age<=53              53.63      51.09    52.10
53                       36.67      37.43    47.60
<=17                     25.67      18.38    22.63
18-age-20                35.35      37.80    36.42
21<=age<=49              55.67      56.53    56.64
50<=age<=53              51.20      51.08    50.52
>53                      41.93      42.23    43.01

* Only one person was observed in each of these three years
therefore it is not representative of the heal point score.

Table 3: Mean Point Score by Official Language, Work Experience and
Education Level

        Official Language               1995       1996       1997
  English                               59.92      60.31     59.48
  French                                56.10      56.13     51.00
  Both                                  48.79      51.90     50.77
  English                               54.75      55.54     55.94
  French                                49.07      49.43     49.77
  Both                                  49.98      50.20     50.22
         Work Experience
  None                                  48.79      48.55     48.37
  1 year                                63.44      63.50     62.83
  2 years                               66.10      65.37     64.98
  3 years                               67.24      67.41     67.12
  >=4 years                             58.16      59.16     58.29
  None                                  43.32      44.56     45.07
  1 year                                58.40      59.34     59.55
  2 years                               60.06      61.56     61.71
  3 years                               61.99      63.08     63.51
  >=4 years                             53.32      54.08     54.49
          Educational Level
    masters degree and above            61.52      62.38     60.66
    Bachelors degree                    59.67      59.99     60.03
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               53.14      54.63     53.95
    13 yrs no degree                    38.62      39.65     39.74
    10 to 12 yrs                        38.89      39.23     38.58
    0 to 9 yrs                          33.00      35.43     32.82
    masters degree and above            60.24      60.02     59.32
    Bachelors degree                    58.68      58.72     58.50
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               52.65      53.70     53.77
    13 yrs no degree                    41.39      41.48     41.02
    10 to 12 yrs                        41.32      41.53     41.47
    0 to 9 yrs                          36.05      36.14     35.53

        Official Language               1998       1999
  English                               58.68      59.08
  French                                57.50      52.15
  Both                                  48.62      50.79
  English                               56.56      57.73
  French                                50.59      51.30
  Both                                  50.29      50.13
         Work Experience
  None                                  47.33      48.16
  1 year                                62.52      62.65
  2 years                               64.67      65.20
  3 years                               66.30      66.84
  >=4 years                             57.33      57.98
  None                                  44.04      44.26
  1 year                                58.83      58.93
  2 years                               60.53      60.86
  3 years                               62.41      62.98
  >=4 years                             54.89      55.91
          Educational Level
    masters degree and above            59.11      59.18
    Bachelors degree                    60.72      60.29
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               54.47      53.89
    13 yrs no degree                    39.70      39.59
    10 to 12 yrs                        38.52      38.43
    0 to 9 yrs                          32.00      31.67
    masters degree and above            59.03      58.85
    Bachelors degree                    58.49      58.67
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               53.44      53.96
    13 yrs no degree                    40.93      40.99
    10 to 12 yrs                        42.31      42.63
    0 to 9 yrs                          36.22      34.71

                                                  % Pop.
        Official Language               2000      in 1998
  English                               59.41      98.59
  French                                54.75       0.14
  Both                                  51.49       1.27
  English                               57.88      81.12
  French                                52.04       7.43
  Both                                  50.23      11.45
         Work Experience
  None                                  48.16       0.05
  1 year                                63.52       0.06
  2 years                               64.82       0.07
  3 years                               67.40       0.10
  >=4 years                             58.39       0.73
  None                                  44.02       0.05
  1 year                                58.99       0.06
  2 years                               60.84       0.06
  3 years                               62.58       0.05
  >=4 years                             56.10       0.78
          Educational Level
    masters degree and above            60.12      36.41
    Bachelors degree                    60.11      48.81
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               53.95      10.57
    13 yrs no degree                    39.69       3.22
    10 to 12 yrs                        40.00       0.53
    0 to 9 yrs                          33.00       0.46
    masters degree and above            58.00      19.52
    Bachelors degree                    58.63      47.13
  Trade certificate, non-university
  diploma                               53.88      21.25
    13 yrs no degree                    41.03       5.36
    10 to 12 yrs                        42.90       5.29
    0 to 9 yrs                          35.12       1.45

Figure 1--Acceptance Rate: Chinese VS Non-Chinese

        Chinese   Non-Chinese

1995    45.3%        21.6%
1996    43.1%        23.2%
1997    39.9%        23.6%
1998    38.8%        23.8%
1999    39.1%        26.6%
2000    39.1%        26.5%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 2--Mean Value of Point Scores: Chinese VS Non-Chinese

        Chinese   Non-Chinese

1995    59.59        53.91
1996    60.19        54.82
1997    59.39        55.24
1998    58.55        55.40
1999    58.98        56.30
2000    59.33        56.46

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 5-Acceptance Rate: (57/90): Chinese VS Non-Chinese

        Chinese   Non-Chinese

1995    63.1%        33.1%
1996    64.8%        35.7%
1997    61.6%        37.2%
1998    56.3%        38.6%
1999    57.3%        42.6%
2000    59.4%        42.8%

Note: Table made from bar graph.
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.