Parents Sponsorship - Stop Immigration Lottery

[nayr69sg]

All provinces currently do have their own immigratiop programs (Provincial Nominee Programs), not just Quebec.

For PGP though, I've always found it odd that Quebec is allowed to make all these special rules to make it easier to sponsor parents from there (mainly requiring only 1 year of income) while the rest of the provinces must follow federal guidelines. I would have no issue if other provinces were also allowed to set their own financial rules. But at the end of the day the federal govt still controls Quebec's PGP program in terms of overall caps, quotas on PRs issued per year, excessive demand test, etc.

However, the federal government still gives lots of money to the provinces to use in their healthcare programs, and manages distribution of funds from the richer to the poorer provinces. So no matter what province a parent goes to, it can still affect all Canadians when it comes to taxes and healthcare costs.

Imagine also if some provinces thought the federal rules were too generous. More conservative provinces (like Alberta for example) may go back to cutting the caps on PGP programs, or simply eliminating it all-together in their province if given the chance to control it. Allowing the federal government to ultimately control it may be the better choice.

More conservative provinces like Alberta would more likely require a higher income per household in order to qualify for PGP.

As it is most Albertans are pretty pissed about how we pay equalization payments to the rest of Canada who have no qualms accepting this money earned from oil revenues. Meanwhile the rest of Canada objects the oil sands and oil economy and condemns pipelines.

It is kind of like saying we the Catholic Church are happy to take donations from Abortion Clinics but condemn abortions and go to such clinics to protest. Hypocrisy?

I am pretty sure Albertans would be more than happy to only accept extremely high income households having PGP.

 

[Rob_TO]

They could build in a clause that says that they can ONLY have health care coverage in the province they signed up with. As it is if anyone goes to Quebec and sees a doctor they have to pay upfront. Then go back to make a claim with their own province Healthcare Authority. So it's not like there isn't a system like this already in place.

Impossible. That goes against the fundamental nature of Canadian universal healthcare. You can't possibly have a system, where some PRs/citizens have access to healthcare and others don't. All PRs/citizens must always have full access to healthcare.

Even in Quebec, the current system says if you move the original province must cover you until you qualify for Quebec healthcare.

More conservative provinces like Alberta would more likely require a higher income per household in order to qualify for PGP.

What would be the point? Higher income has nothing to do with costs/demand parents would put on any province's healthcare system.

 

[nayr69sg]

Impossible. That goes against the fundamental nature of Canadian universal healthcare. You can't possibly have a system, where some PRs/citizens have access to healthcare and others don't. All PRs/citizens must always have full access to healthcare.

Even in Quebec, the current system says if you move the original province must cover you until you qualify for Quebec healthcare.



What would be the point? Higher income has nothing to do with costs/demand parents would put on any province's healthcare system.

We have debated this before Rob. Low socioeconomic status patients have higher cost burden to healthcare systems. They just get sick more often and statistically are more likely to have chronic illnesses. It's been proven in many studies.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199004193221606

http://vibrantcanada.ca/files/the_direct_economic_burden_-_feb_2016_16_0.pdf There is even a Canadian report that supports this dated 2016.

"The lowest income group accounts for 60% ($3.7 billion) of the health care costs of socio-economic health inequalities."

If the real concern is cost to healthcare, then there really is evidence to propose allowing people of higher SES into the PGP. Of course that runs counter to the whole "equality" principle.

But again, I keep hearing Canadians complaining about how PGP is bad for cost to the healthcare system etc. Well you have a proven way to better control and keep those costs in check if we continue with PGP - only bring in parents of higher SES.

 

[Rob_TO]

We have debated this before Rob. Low socioeconomic status patients have higher cost burden to healthcare systems. They just get sick more often and statistically are more likely to have chronic illnesses. It's been proven in many studies.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199004193221606

http://vibrantcanada.ca/files/the_direct_economic_burden_-_feb_2016_16_0.pdf There is even a Canadian report that supports this dated 2016.

"The lowest income group accounts for 60% ($3.7 billion) of the health care costs of socio-economic health inequalities."

If the real concern is cost to healthcare, then there really is evidence to propose allowing people of higher SES into the PGP. Of course that runs counter to the whole "equality" principle.

But again, I keep hearing Canadians complaining about how PGP is bad for cost to the healthcare system etc. Well you have a proven way to better control and keep those costs in check if we continue with PGP - only bring in parents of higher SES.

The study does not relate directly to parents sponsorship. PGP LICO test already makes "low income" sponsors ineligible, so with current LICO+30% amount for 3 years in place, parents are already coming to a middle-class lifestyle, not to poverty levels. There is a certain income level range where the differences would start to become negligible, so increasing income requirements further would have no noticeable effect.

And also it doesn't do any studies based on age, specifically on the 65+ range which represents the average immigrating parents. As ones age increases and typical old-age health issues start arising, the socioeconomic contributors to health may become less and less important.

From the study itself, it is also not "proven" at all:

WHAT THE REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE:
• This report does not state that reducing income differences will reduce differences in health care costs. Reducing costs would require Canadians to change their use of health care.
• This report does not state that health care cost differences between income groups are solely due to level of income.
• The data in this study cannot be used to assess the relationship between income and health, including whether having a lower income causes poorer health, or the reverse.

 

[nayr69sg]

The study does not relate directly to parents sponsorship. PGP LICO test already makes "low income" sponsors ineligible, so with current LICO+30% amount for 3 years in place, parents are already coming to a middle-class lifestyle, not to poverty levels. There is a certain income level range where the differences would start to become negligible, so increasing income requirements further would have no noticeable effect.
.

Anyway why stop at LICO + 30%? Why not 50%? 80% 100%?

Who decides these things anyway?

I am sure most Canadians would support a LICO + 100%. Except of course those who are trying to get their parents here through PGP.

There is also NO PROOF that PGP does not contribute to the Canadian economy and is a pure drain. As we have mentioned, some Parents come with funds and net worth, buy homes, buy furniture, buy cars, also start businesses. More can be done to select Parents and Grandparents that can contribute to Canada's economy.

There should be an element where parents who are willing to invest money be given more points than those have no money.

I would like to qualify that my stand only applies when people start arguing on the case that PGP is a pure drain on Canada and a burden to the healthcare system and costs Canadians with no benefit or contribution.

If the stand is purely not about costs but about humanitarian charitable concerns that the lottery system is of course the fairest way and best way to distribute the spots.

You cannot on one hand criticize PGP and talk about only drain and nothing in return and then on the other hand reject a system that favors richer parents willing to invest to get priority and say that is unfair. Decide what is most important and stick to it.

 

[Rob_TO]

Anyway why stop at LICO + 30%? Why not 50%? 80% 100%?

Who decides these things anyway?

IRCC decides it, based on internal studies and historical data of parents that have already immigrated and what happened in those cases. Obviously we don't get access to those studies or how exactly the 30% was arrived at, but it is not a random number.

There is also NO PROOF that PGP does not contribute to the Canadian economy and is a pure drain. As we have mentioned, some Parents come with funds and net worth, buy homes, buy furniture, buy cars, also start businesses. More can be done to select Parents and Grandparents that can contribute to Canada's economy.

There should be an element where parents who are willing to invest money be given more points than those have no money.

Nobody is saying it's a pure drain. Just that overall the total costs to healthcare, outweigh the total economic benefits

I would love to see a system where parents willing to invest in Canada, are given priority.

 

[nayr69sg]

I would love to see a system where parents willing to invest in Canada, are given priority.

Me too. I think that is the best way. There should be two arms. One a points based system for Investor/PGP. And another which is pure lottery PGP.

Perhaps out of 10000 they can allocate 1000 for Investor/PGP. Other 9000 is pure lottery. That gives people with ability to contribute to Canada have a higher chance of coming here. Makes total sense isn't it?

 

[canuck78]

They could build in a clause that says that they can ONLY have health care coverage in the province they signed up with. As it is if anyone goes to Quebec and sees a doctor they have to pay upfront. Then go back to make a claim with their own province Healthcare Authority. So it's not like there isn't a system like this already in place.

Why would the government want to spend more more processing tons of claims like that. The reciprocity agreement is not supposed to be a longterm thing it is for people on vacation who get sick or people who move from one province from another. There is not a large volume of claims and they send you back to your home province when you're stable. It's not meant for prescription drugs, home care, longterm care, etc. Won't work. As PR you have freedom of mobility. Extra clauses just make the program more expensive to run.

 

[nayr69sg]

Why would the government want to spend more more processing tons of claims like that. The reciprocity agreement is not supposed to be a longterm thing it is for people on vacation who get sick or people who move from one province from another. There is not a large volume of claims and they send you back to your home province when you're stable. It's not meant for prescription drugs, home care, longterm care, etc. Won't work. As PR you have freedom of mobility. Extra clauses just make the program more expensive to run.

Well Quebec is the only one like that. Doctors who see patients from Quebec in Alberta have to bill the patients directly as well. Many times the patients say they cannot or wont pay. There is also no way in hell Quebec will pay if we bill them for treating people from Quebec. We end up treating them pro bono. I suspect Quebec knows this and takes advantage of it. I am shocked that Canada allows Quebec to get away with this.

 

[K2K]

It's not unfair at all and represents the only way to give equal and fair access to the program to all Canadians/PRs that meet the basic eligibility requirement.

Here is the excerpt from the memo that was written to the old Imm Minister by IRCC. Apparently, there were only two pros for the system one of which was to stop couriers from delivering applications and one of the (three) cons questioned the equity and fairness of the system:
Option 3: Accept parent and grandparent sponsorship applications for processing based on a lottery system.
An unlimited number of applications would be accepted into a pool over a defined period of time, after which a lottery would be run, applications that are not randomly selected would be returned to the applicants. While there are currently no express provisions to allow for a lottery, ministerial instructions could be developed.
Pros:

• This option would eliminate the “rush to the gate'' of a first-in first-out system.
• There would no longer be an incentive for applicants to use courier services to deliver their parent and grandparent sponsorship applications to the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga, which would eliminate the possibility of courier services charging applicants excessive fees for doing so.

Cons:

• It is not equitable if done every year, given that the situation may arise where someone who applies for the first time is selected, while another person who has entered the lottery for several years is not selected. This situation would cause fairness concerns for applicants attempting to reunite with aging family members.

 

[canuck78]

Well Quebec is the only one like that. Doctors who see patients from Quebec in Alberta have to bill the patients directly as well. Many times the patients say they cannot or wont pay. There is also no way in hell Quebec will pay if we bill them for treating people from Quebec. We end up treating them pro bono. I suspect Quebec knows this and takes advantage of it. I am shocked that Canada allows Quebec to get away with this.

Every province bills each other when a resident uses healthcare in a province that is not their own. Not sure why you think Quebec is the only one with a reciprocity agreement. Happens with every province.

 

[Rob_TO]

Here is the excerpt from the memo that was written to the old Imm Minister by IRCC. Apparently, there were only two pros for the system one of which was to stop couriers from delivering applications and one of the (three) cons questioned the equity and fairness of the system:
Option 3: Accept parent and grandparent sponsorship applications for processing based on a lottery system.
An unlimited number of applications would be accepted into a pool over a defined period of time, after which a lottery would be run, applications that are not randomly selected would be returned to the applicants. While there are currently no express provisions to allow for a lottery, ministerial instructions could be developed.
Pros:

• This option would eliminate the “rush to the gate'' of a first-in first-out system.
• There would no longer be an incentive for applicants to use courier services to deliver their parent and grandparent sponsorship applications to the Case Processing Centre in Mississauga, which would eliminate the possibility of courier services charging applicants excessive fees for doing so.

Cons:

• It is not equitable if done every year, given that the situation may arise where someone who applies for the first time is selected, while another person who has entered the lottery for several years is not selected. This situation would cause fairness concerns for applicants attempting to reunite with aging family members.

Interesting, do you have the link to that? Curious what their other 2 Cons were.

The con here is a pretty simple fix to just give more entries to those that qualifies but missed lottery in previous years. Seems pretty easy to implement and track if they really wanted to.

 

[K2K]

Interesting, do you have the link to that? Curious what their other 2 Cons were.

This kind of information does not come with a link. This is called access to information request.
As for the other two cons - one is irrelevant since they chose not to accept applications first and then do the lottery, so the burden on the system of accepting a large number of applications is irrelevant; the second con is the need to ensure that only one request per applicant is submitted. The document is heavily redacted, so there are no details of the other two options, but the discussion seems to have been limited to three options and did not include any other arguments of any nature in the case of the lottery.

 

[nayr69sg]

Every province bills each other when a resident uses healthcare in a province that is not their own. Not sure why you think Quebec is the only one with a reciprocity agreement. Happens with every province.

Yes other provinces bill each other. But the patients dont have to pay out of pocket first. Direct interprovincial billing.

Quebec is the only one where they will not allow direct interprovincial billings.

 

[K2K]

So assuming the lottery is here to stay, then instead focus on ways to make it better and fairer.

Not sure we need to assume that the lottery is here to stay. IRCC is well aware that your position is in the minority. From the same memo: Historical data show that a majority (73%) of the respondents to on-line consultations conducted during the pause on intake of applications (November 2011 to December 2013) supported the first in, first out system and 81% of respondents opposed a lottery model.