Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
Dec 1st 2005, 6:04 am
#91
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 262
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
Pls look into yr 2005 CIC annual report pg 29 ,
17.6% of yr 2004 ECONOMIC CLASS Principle applicants were not knowing Both English as well as French. ( BOTH) . It is not a small percentage.
Now question arises if they do not know both languages than why CIC is letting them in , and than teaching English. Why not have only those who know english or french ( atleast).
when this question was asked by me 1.5 years ago on the same forum , reply , answer was differrent . you can search back.
Why you will like to give immigration to Economic class PA >> category when migrant is not knowing both the languages.
17.6% of yr 2004 ECONOMIC CLASS Principle applicants were not knowing Both English as well as French. ( BOTH) . It is not a small percentage.
Now question arises if they do not know both languages than why CIC is letting them in , and than teaching English. Why not have only those who know english or french ( atleast).
when this question was asked by me 1.5 years ago on the same forum , reply , answer was differrent . you can search back.
Why you will like to give immigration to Economic class PA >> category when migrant is not knowing both the languages.
Originally Posted by hankim2
The point is English speaking immigrants are not only found in India.
Most of those whom Canada is investing money to teach English are likely family class immigrants/dependents
Most of those whom Canada is investing money to teach English are likely family class immigrants/dependents
Dec 1st 2005, 7:40 am
#92
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 147
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
I could take it that these small group without language proficiency got in thru other compensating factors eg arranged employment, family relationship, etc.
Compensating factors have policy considerations (non-economic as well) behind them.
In any event, we do not know whether they include a large portion of those who qualified under the previous immigration regime (where language was not as strong an emphasis) and also nothing to suggest that they do not include applicants from India.
And what about the 80% plus who know one or both languages. Will this rebut those who claim that the system has been largely admitting immigrants who do not know either one or both of the languages
You should not read too much into such data.
Compensating factors have policy considerations (non-economic as well) behind them.
In any event, we do not know whether they include a large portion of those who qualified under the previous immigration regime (where language was not as strong an emphasis) and also nothing to suggest that they do not include applicants from India.
And what about the 80% plus who know one or both languages. Will this rebut those who claim that the system has been largely admitting immigrants who do not know either one or both of the languages
You should not read too much into such data.
Originally Posted by Ashok
Pls look into yr 2005 CIC annual report pg 29 ,
17.6% of yr 2004 ECONOMIC CLASS Principle applicants were not knowing Both English as well as French. ( BOTH) . It is not a small percentage.
Now question arises if they do not know both languages than why CIC is letting them in , and than teaching English. Why not have only those who know english or french ( atleast).
when this question was asked by me 1.5 years ago on the same forum , reply , answer was differrent . you can search back.
Why you will like to give immigration to Economic class PA >> category when migrant is not knowing both the languages.
17.6% of yr 2004 ECONOMIC CLASS Principle applicants were not knowing Both English as well as French. ( BOTH) . It is not a small percentage.
Now question arises if they do not know both languages than why CIC is letting them in , and than teaching English. Why not have only those who know english or french ( atleast).
when this question was asked by me 1.5 years ago on the same forum , reply , answer was differrent . you can search back.
Why you will like to give immigration to Economic class PA >> category when migrant is not knowing both the languages.
Dec 1st 2005, 8:28 am
#93
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 69
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
Originally Posted by stephenbottcher
Samon, thanks for putting me in the unskilled class with a B.Sc. in RF Technology and a managing position at a major Canadian high tech company.
Next time you talk to a plumber, please have your dictionary ready, maybe even the Plumber's Handbook as he can't read and actually can't do the job, but is super skilled! Ts, ts, ts ... you havn't got it right, mate.
Next time you talk to a plumber, please have your dictionary ready, maybe even the Plumber's Handbook as he can't read and actually can't do the job, but is super skilled! Ts, ts, ts ... you havn't got it right, mate.
1 The highly skilled as, Plumbers, welders etc
2 The highly educated and unskilled(joke) as, Scholars, professors, managers
etc
3 Those in between, docs, engineers etc
And so the need for three points system with three queues and three quotas.
Dec 1st 2005, 9:14 am
#94
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 262
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
hankim2
If 17% principle applicants are not knowing English & French (BOTH), than it is least likely both parents and as well as children are proficient in these.
Question arises why take them and start from such a low level.
I have very clearly told that India can give all sorts of skilled workers, but my Visit to CHC Delhi (INDIA) shows me CIC is not particular about it.
If you look into H1-B ( 50% is from India) , If you look into HSMP (85% are from India). Both have no quota system. Both countries are looking into their needs not Charity.
It really takes almost a complete generation to be fluent in new language.
CIC is looking for persons in sales / oil industry / refinery / steel/ petrochemicals / shipping and a lot more high priority areas. You can NOT have just train guys in such areas. Some of the industries are multiBillion $ investment.
You can not afford any listening / speaking issues in a work place. Reading or writing can take a back stage. One wrong movement of valve and one could stop whole plant or bring about an accident.
I know a refinery ( largest grassroot) when multinational task force was sent as field operators. All of them were good ones in their home country but no use as a team.
look into Middle east , worlds largest crude oil exporting area, but very little local skilled manpower.
over here Exxon/Shell/Total/Agip/ PetroCanada ...... all sorts of oil companies depend upon skilled manpower. You wont find even a single chinese perhaps in whole of the outfit.
That does not mean I have grudge against China. All along I am looking as well as talking about CIC>>> what it claims it needs , what it ends up taking and than why waste its resources in bringing up their language proficiency.
If you consider 17% PA + 4 times their family members insignificant and I should not read too much into it , on the other hand you do not like the accent of those around you. Well it really puzzles me.
If 17% principle applicants are not knowing English & French (BOTH), than it is least likely both parents and as well as children are proficient in these.
Question arises why take them and start from such a low level.
I have very clearly told that India can give all sorts of skilled workers, but my Visit to CHC Delhi (INDIA) shows me CIC is not particular about it.
If you look into H1-B ( 50% is from India) , If you look into HSMP (85% are from India). Both have no quota system. Both countries are looking into their needs not Charity.
It really takes almost a complete generation to be fluent in new language.
CIC is looking for persons in sales / oil industry / refinery / steel/ petrochemicals / shipping and a lot more high priority areas. You can NOT have just train guys in such areas. Some of the industries are multiBillion $ investment.
You can not afford any listening / speaking issues in a work place. Reading or writing can take a back stage. One wrong movement of valve and one could stop whole plant or bring about an accident.
I know a refinery ( largest grassroot) when multinational task force was sent as field operators. All of them were good ones in their home country but no use as a team.
look into Middle east , worlds largest crude oil exporting area, but very little local skilled manpower.
over here Exxon/Shell/Total/Agip/ PetroCanada ...... all sorts of oil companies depend upon skilled manpower. You wont find even a single chinese perhaps in whole of the outfit.
That does not mean I have grudge against China. All along I am looking as well as talking about CIC>>> what it claims it needs , what it ends up taking and than why waste its resources in bringing up their language proficiency.
If you consider 17% PA + 4 times their family members insignificant and I should not read too much into it , on the other hand you do not like the accent of those around you. Well it really puzzles me.
Originally Posted by hankim2
I could take it that these small group without language proficiency got in thru other compensating factors eg arranged employment, family relationship, etc.
Compensating factors have policy considerations (non-economic as well) behind them.
In any event, we do not know whether they include a large portion of those who qualified under the previous immigration regime (where language was not as strong an emphasis) and also nothing to suggest that they do not include applicants from India.
And what about the 80% plus who know one or both languages. Will this rebut those who claim that the system has been largely admitting immigrants who do not know either one or both of the languages
You should not read too much into such data.
Compensating factors have policy considerations (non-economic as well) behind them.
In any event, we do not know whether they include a large portion of those who qualified under the previous immigration regime (where language was not as strong an emphasis) and also nothing to suggest that they do not include applicants from India.
And what about the 80% plus who know one or both languages. Will this rebut those who claim that the system has been largely admitting immigrants who do not know either one or both of the languages
You should not read too much into such data.
Dec 1st 2005, 12:44 pm
#95
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 147
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
Ashok
Sorry, you have simply missed the point. Will let you continue in your belief that India is the only worthwhile source of immigrants for Canada (and Australia and NZ and USA and all other countries needing English speaking immigrants).
If 17% principle applicants are not knowing English & French (BOTH), than it is least likely both parents and as well as children are proficient in these.
Question arises why take them and start from such a low level.
I have very clearly told that India can give all sorts of skilled workers, but my Visit to CHC Delhi (INDIA) shows me CIC is not particular about it.
If you look into H1-B ( 50% is from India) , If you look into HSMP (85% are from India). Both have no quota system. Both countries are looking into their needs not Charity.
It really takes almost a complete generation to be fluent in new language.
CIC is looking for persons in sales / oil industry / refinery / steel/ petrochemicals / shipping and a lot more high priority areas. You can NOT have just train guys in such areas. Some of the industries are multiBillion $ investment.
You can not afford any listening / speaking issues in a work place. Reading or writing can take a back stage. One wrong movement of valve and one could stop whole plant or bring about an accident.
I know a refinery ( largest grassroot) when multinational task force was sent as field operators. All of them were good ones in their home country but no use as a team.
look into Middle east , worlds largest crude oil exporting area, but very little local skilled manpower.
over here Exxon/Shell/Total/Agip/ PetroCanada ...... all sorts of oil companies depend upon skilled manpower. You wont find even a single chinese perhaps in whole of the outfit.
That does not mean I have grudge against China. All along I am looking as well as talking about CIC>>> what it claims it needs , what it ends up taking and than why waste its resources in bringing up their language proficiency.
If you consider 17% PA + 4 times their family members insignificant and I should not read too much into it , on the other hand you do not like the accent of those around you. Well it really puzzles me.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you have simply missed the point. Will let you continue in your belief that India is the only worthwhile source of immigrants for Canada (and Australia and NZ and USA and all other countries needing English speaking immigrants).
If 17% principle applicants are not knowing English & French (BOTH), than it is least likely both parents and as well as children are proficient in these.
Question arises why take them and start from such a low level.
I have very clearly told that India can give all sorts of skilled workers, but my Visit to CHC Delhi (INDIA) shows me CIC is not particular about it.
If you look into H1-B ( 50% is from India) , If you look into HSMP (85% are from India). Both have no quota system. Both countries are looking into their needs not Charity.
It really takes almost a complete generation to be fluent in new language.
CIC is looking for persons in sales / oil industry / refinery / steel/ petrochemicals / shipping and a lot more high priority areas. You can NOT have just train guys in such areas. Some of the industries are multiBillion $ investment.
You can not afford any listening / speaking issues in a work place. Reading or writing can take a back stage. One wrong movement of valve and one could stop whole plant or bring about an accident.
I know a refinery ( largest grassroot) when multinational task force was sent as field operators. All of them were good ones in their home country but no use as a team.
look into Middle east , worlds largest crude oil exporting area, but very little local skilled manpower.
over here Exxon/Shell/Total/Agip/ PetroCanada ...... all sorts of oil companies depend upon skilled manpower. You wont find even a single chinese perhaps in whole of the outfit.
That does not mean I have grudge against China. All along I am looking as well as talking about CIC>>> what it claims it needs , what it ends up taking and than why waste its resources in bringing up their language proficiency.
If you consider 17% PA + 4 times their family members insignificant and I should not read too much into it , on the other hand you do not like the accent of those around you. Well it really puzzles me.[/QUOTE]
Dec 1st 2005, 3:57 pm
#96
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 262
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
Hi hankim2
Just have a look at facts & figures >> I am referring to page 61, year 2004 report, Titled "Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview – Permanent and Temporary Residents"
From 1995 till 2004 (I have not looked into pre 1995 figures)
CIC was getting 47 to 57% of its economic class PA's not knowing both English as well as French. One can imagine what a waste of time and resources teaching them English or French or maybe both.
I am wondering 17% in 2005 report is what ?? a typo ? Or I have really missed something ?? For me 17% itself is a pretty large figure, when it comes to Economic class PA.
I am still wondering who sponsors them and for what skills?
Do you have any clue? I am not having a dig at any one. I remain clueless till date. With all my skills in oilfield I can not imagine working for All French or all Russian or Chinese speaking teams.
On other side I do marvel and appreciate enterpreneurship or spirit of adventure of these immigrants.
[QUOTE=hankim2]
Ashok
Sorry, you have simply missed the point. Will let you continue in your belief that India is the only worthwhile source of immigrants for Canada (and Australia and NZ and USA and all other countries needing English speaking immigrants).
Just have a look at facts & figures >> I am referring to page 61, year 2004 report, Titled "Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview – Permanent and Temporary Residents"
From 1995 till 2004 (I have not looked into pre 1995 figures)
CIC was getting 47 to 57% of its economic class PA's not knowing both English as well as French. One can imagine what a waste of time and resources teaching them English or French or maybe both.
I am wondering 17% in 2005 report is what ?? a typo ? Or I have really missed something ?? For me 17% itself is a pretty large figure, when it comes to Economic class PA.
I am still wondering who sponsors them and for what skills?
Do you have any clue? I am not having a dig at any one. I remain clueless till date. With all my skills in oilfield I can not imagine working for All French or all Russian or Chinese speaking teams.
On other side I do marvel and appreciate enterpreneurship or spirit of adventure of these immigrants.
[QUOTE=hankim2]
Ashok
Sorry, you have simply missed the point. Will let you continue in your belief that India is the only worthwhile source of immigrants for Canada (and Australia and NZ and USA and all other countries needing English speaking immigrants).
Dec 2nd 2005, 12:26 am
#97
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: Mr. Miller this really unfair if they raised the pass mark
I think it's time to close this thread.
Jeremy
Jeremy
