Canada Immigration Plan 2017 released !

[Aal_]

why is it starting at 240k? if it starts from 0 then u will see the difference its just misleading. if u start at 280k then it will show just 2016 and 17

But the scale is not off. Consider it zoomed in. It doesn't need to start at 0

 

[vensak]

What is interesting again is that Atlantic programm. That 2000 application will result into 4000 to 5000 immigrants. I would take this one as kind of special provincial programm, where most likely 4 provinces share the whole application pool.
So the actual change on free FSW is not that big (+6000 to 7000).
We still do not know how that will be distributed.
There also increasing trend to send more and more applicants through the provincial nominations (much more visible for those outlanders).

Let us see if this will trigger some provinces to reopen.

 

[Aal_]

Since it is same category, if they don't get 2000 app they will have to take it from skilled. That's imo

 

[mead]

But the scale is not off. Consider it zoomed in. It doesn't need to start at 0

ur getting stuck in the technicality its misleading the way he is representing data.

 

[vensak]

ur getting stuck in the technicality its misleading the way he is representing data.

Technicaly the graph is correct, but the idea that you get when you push beginning of the graph is that the increase is much bigger than it actually is. That is very common thing used in marketing. Just like the immigration data many people translate 69k of Economical immigrants of the first category into 69k ITA applications (which will never meet with reality).

In case of this graph however everybody is able to calculate the real difference in 0% even if 0 is not mentioned in the graph. (if however you would only know the difference between years without knowing the total amount of immigrants, you would not be able to do such comparison).

 

[Aal_]

ur getting stuck in the technicality its misleading the way he is representing data.

It's not. if you were a data analyst you would be reading and designing charts like those all the time. Nothing personal buddy sorry if I bbugged you.

 

[Aal_]

Technicaly the graph is correct, but the idea that you get when you push beginning of the graph is that the increase is much bigger than it actually is. That is very common thing used in marketing. Just like the immigration data many people translate 69k of Economical immigrants of the first category into 69k ITA applications (which will never meet with reality).

In case of this graph however everybody is able to calculate the real difference in 0% even if 0 is not mentioned in the graph. (if however you would only know the difference between years without knowing the total amount of immigrants, you would not be able to do such comparison).

This

 

[mead]

It's not. if you were a data analyst you would be reading and designing charts like those all the time. Nothing personal buddy sorry if I bbugged you.

no if ur a data analyst and ur showing charts like that means ur manipulating /misleading to suit ur purpose.

 

[Aal_]

no if ur a data analyst and ur showing charts like that means ur manipulating /misleading to suit ur purpose.

It is only misleading if there were no numbers, it is not the designers fault if you choose to ignore the numbers and look at the columns *sigh*. Please tell me if you start at 0 and you have numbers that are 250k and 251k, how would that look? Zooming in is necessary when you want to show small differences that are not considered negligible in a context.

 

[Alexios07]

It is only misleading if there were no numbers, it is not the designers fault if you choose to ignore the numbers and look at the columns *sigh*. Please tell me if you start at 0 and you have numbers that are 250k and 251k, how would that look? Zooming in is necessary when you want to show small differences that are not considered negligible in a context.

The way the graph is drawn called "sensationalization", but can you stop arguing about the graph? What a waste of time.

 

[vensak]

It is only misleading if there were no numbers, it is not the designers fault if you choose to ignore the numbers and look at the columns *sigh*. Please tell me if you start at 0 and you have numbers that are 250k and 251k, how would that look? Zooming in is necessary when you want to show small differences that are not considered negligible in a context.

Misleading statements:
Snickers (that chocolate bar) is a good and balanced healthy breakfast. (Scientifically proven to be a very unbalanced meal)
Nutella (the chocolate spread) is full of Nuts and Milk (where in reality the % of those compared of other ingredients is very small)

Correct but marketing type of statements:
Snickers is composed from higher amount of nuts than Nutella (both are not healthy but the statement is correct on the % of ingrediences).

There will be significant yearly increase of immigrants accepted in Canada in 2016 when compared with the years 2012 to 2015. - this is what that zoomed graph does describe. That that significant increase is compared to the total amount of immigrants just lets say 8% is also truth, but 8% is still like 3x higher than the difference in the previous year (like 2-3%).
Misleading statement will be for example
Canada will accept 3x more immigrants in next 2 years.

 

[distressed]

it is one thing to accept applications...rather a different when it comes to processing. In family quota for parents they increased 84,000 with a back log from previous years....how long people will have to wait. That is question that we should be asking

 

[ajkidwai]

Source here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2016-10-31.asp

Looks like we will have a 15,000 increase in quota. 280,000 ~ 320,000 compared with 280,000 ~ 305,000 in 2016.


Ok, this is the summary table for three years 2015, 2016 and 2017 based on the:

Key Highlights 2017 Immigration Levels Plan

and

Key Highlights – 2016 Immigration Levels Plan

Immigration Class		2017 Levels Plan Target		2016 Levels Plan Target		2015 Levels Plan Target
Economic Total		172,500		160,600		181,300
Family Total		84,000		80,000		68,000
Refugee Total		40,000		55,800		24,800
Humanitarian Total		3,500		3,600		5,100
Overall		300,000		300,000		279,200

So there is a reduce of:

• 15,800 in quota for Refugee class (40,000 vs. 55,800)
  

while we have an increase of

• 11,900 in quota for Economic class (172,500 vs. 160,600)

From what I see, the quota for Economic stream this year still hasn't gone back to the 2015's (172,500 vs. 181,300).

Another important document:

[url=http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/annual-report-2016/index.asp#s1.2] IRCC's annual report to Parliament on Immigration 2016

Detailed plan:

Immigration Category	Category	Low	High	Target
Economic	Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program	69,600	77,300	73,700
	Canadian Experience Class
	Federal Skilled Worker Program
	Federal Skilled Trades Program
	Federal Caregivers	17,000	20,000	18,000
	Federal Business	500	1,000	500
	Provincial Nominee Program	49,000	54,000	51,000
	Quebec Skilled Workers and Business	28,000	31,200	29,300
	Economic Total	164,100	183,500	172,500
Family	Spouses, Partners and Children	62,000	66,000	64,000
	Parents and Grandparents	18,000	20,000	20,000
	Family Total	80,000	86,000	84,000
Refugees and Protected Persons	Protected Persons in Canada and Dependants Abroad	13,000	16,000	15,000
	Resettled Refugees	20,000	30,000	25,000
	Government-Assisted	5,000	8,000	7,500
	Blended Visa Office-Referred	1,000	3,000	1,500
	Privately Sponsored	14,000	19,000	16,000
	Protected Persons and Refugees Total	33,000	46,000	40,000
Humanitarian and Other	Humanitarian and Other	2,900	4,500	3,500
OVERALL		280,000	320,000	300,000
				~

Family says 84000 in 2017. So if ITA are issued the dependants will be taken from this category or the economic class?