PGP 2020

[nayr69sg]

We are not that cruel to PGP parents/grandparents to wait years for them to get PR after their application got accepted. When you apply for get a service from the government, are you willing to wait say 2-3 years standing at the booth to get any service? No. Same applies to PGP program. While we are providing the service, the least we can do is offer it with at minimal burden to the taxpayers at a reasonable rate. That including expecting a reasonable wait time for PGP to get PR. Just because I have to take all the pros and cons with PGP doesn't mean that all the immigrants must bring their parents in either. The only pro side of PGP is that it is only a potential perk to attract immigrants to come work in Canada and that applicant knows that the taxpayers will be paying for their parents' health care. The cons side of PGP is extra burden the parents will have on the health care system since they never paid into the system.

I have already said that I rather swap PGP sponsorship for sibling sponsorship myself. At least with the sibling, they are able-bodied people who can work and contribute to income tax support health care / pension.

Yes, Canada government has a spending problem. Spending more than it generates revenue.

Actually I think Canada is notorious for poor service from the government. Be it CRA enquiries. IRCC enquiries. Applications for pipelines *lol* approved then cancelled approved then halted then bought over by the government.

We are used to waiting and having an inefficient government as well as some pseudo government entities.

I applied for a wall diploma from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. This was Oct 7. It said wait 12 weeks for delivery. I just called them and they said they have a technical problem with printing. And they CANNOT give me a timeframe. Wow. I am not surprised though. LOL!

So does the pros outweight the cons when it comes to PGP? Sounds like you think the cons outweight the pros.

if you look at it from economics and supply and demand for healthcare I would agree.

But as you mentioned it is a compassionate program. So I think we can throw out the economic discussions there then? The fact we even have compassionate programs means we should be able to afford it. If we can't we shouldn't be giving out freebies.

 

[screech339]

So does the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to PGP? Sounds like you think the cons outweigh the pros.

if you look at it from economics and supply and demand for healthcare I would agree.

But as you mentioned it is a compassionate program. So I think we can throw out the economic discussions there then? The fact we even have compassionate programs means we should be able to afford it. If we can't we shouldn't be giving out freebies.

Homeless shelters, charity organizations, any organizations that depends on donations are also compassionate programs also. Does it means that you can give away money more than you can actually afford? No. You freely give donations according to how much you can afford to give away. In other words, you still consider the affordability of how much you can donate. Economic discussion is still part of your decisions whether you can afford to donate how much and when. You are not going to donate more to the point of going broke, are you? Just because something is consider compassionate, doesn't absolve one from financial responsibility.

No matter what the personal feelings are, no matter how you slice it, the cons side of PGP always outweigh the Pro side. And since this is a compassionate program, we need to keep the negative effect of the problem to a minimum as possible, short of cutting it off completely. Since we would not want to cut it off completely, at least keep the negative impact low as possible.

 

[screech339]

My wife wants to bring her parents over to Canada under PGP as well. She knows that the only benefit to having her parents over is to help them get access to medical care. She admitted it herself. She knows her parents will never work. She knows her parents will be getting "free" medical care. The Pro side of her parents being here in her perspective, free medical care and that she has company.

 

[nayr69sg]

Homeless shelters, charity organizations, any organizations that depends on donations are also compassionate programs also. Does it means that you can give away money more than you can actually afford? No. You freely give donations according to how much you can afford to give away. In other words, you still consider the affordability of how much you can donate. Economic discussion is still part of your decisions whether you can afford to donate how much and when. You are not going to donate more to the point of going broke, are you? Just because something is consider compassionate, doesn't absolve one from financial responsibility.

No matter what the personal feelings are, no matter how you slice it, the cons side of PGP always outweigh the Pro side. And since this is a compassionate program, we need to keep the negative effect of the problem to a minimum as possible, short of cutting it off completely. Since we would not want to cut it off completely, at least keep the negative impact low as possible.

I agree with you.

So how many PGP parents/grandparents would keep the negative impact low enough for you? This was my original question. But your answer was for the purpose of reducing backlogs.

So how many parents/grandparents can Canada afford to take in as a charitable program?

The Government of Canada has deemed that 10,000 spots or 20,000 people count a year is the number they will take in. I am guessing they have done their numbers?

If you consider Canada's population is 35 million people, then an increase of 20,000 people is a 0.057% increase in the population. Granted this entire 0.057% is likely all in the elderly aging population.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/seniors-action-report.html

If you go by that report they say that about 7 million of the 35 million population of Canada is aged >65 in 2020.

So an increase of 20,000 is an increase of 0.286% of the population aged >65 in Canada.

I think those numbers are pretty small don't you think? 0.057% increase in population overall. or 0.286% increase in the elderly population. Another way to say it is for every existing 350 elderly people >65 years old we add 1 more every year with the PGP. Does that sound like a drastic increase in elderly people overall that will cause our healthcare system to collapse?

How much lower should it go?

 

[nayr69sg]

My wife wants to bring her parents over to Canada under PGP as well. She knows that the only benefit to having her parents over is to help them get access to medical care. She admitted it herself. She knows her parents will never work. She knows her parents will be getting "free" medical care. The Pro side of her parents being here in her perspective, free medical care and that she has company.

I agree. And I echo your wife's sentiments. It is the same for my parents. My sisters are also Canadian PRs. One of them has already moved here with her husband for over a year. The other sister is still planning her move. PGP is indeed basically giving away free healthcare to 20,000 seniors per year.

My wife's parents do NOT want to come to Canada as the majority of their family is in Singapore and they like it there. So not all parents will want to move to Canada with their children.

 

[screech339]

Do you personally keep spending money more than you take in? If you spend more than you take, even if it is just a little bit over, your debt will continue to get bigger and bigger over time. So you say so what it is only a little bit, or less than 1%, you are not trying to stop the bleeding, you only adding it.

As for backlog, as reason for reducing PGP, it is one of the reasons. Usually you can't stop the process of PGP already taking place, so my reason for reducing is to clear the backlog or even freeze until backlog is cleared. Harper was smart to freeze the PGP until backlog was reduced and reopened under better stricter rules.

Yes, they can cancel any PGP program including those in process. There is an implied contract to honour the agreement. Again it would be cruel. It has been done before with an economic program since it would take years to clear backlog. Process cancelled and restarted fresh under new rules with refunds made and backlog cleaned.

You are trying to rationalize the PGP by saying the numbers are too small to be a concern against the huge numbers. Birth Tourism also exist as well and although the number of cases are small, probably smaller than 20,000 senios per year, it is still making an impact that some people wants to revist the citizenship law to limit citizenship birthright. Just because it is a small issue doesn't mean you can ignore it. A small issue can lead to a huge problem.

 

[nayr69sg]

Do you personally keep spending money more than you take in? If you spend more than you take, even if it is just a little bit over, your debt will continue to get bigger and bigger over time. So you say so what it is only a little bit, or less than 1%, you are not trying to stop the bleeding, you only adding it.

As for backlog, as reason for reducing PGP, it is one of the reasons. Usually you can't stop the process of PGP already taking place, so my reason for reducing is to clear the backlog or even freeze until backlog is cleared. Harper was smart to freeze the PGP until backlog was reduced and reopened under better stricter rules.

Yes, they can cancel any PGP program including those in process. There is an implied contract to honour the agreement. Again it would be cruel. It has been done before with an economic program since it would take years to clear backlog. Process cancelled and restarted fresh under new rules with refunds made and backlog cleaned.

You are trying to rationalize the PGP by saying the numbers are too small to be a concern against the huge numbers. Birth Tourism also exist as well and although the number of cases are small, probably smaller than 20,000 senios per year, it is still making an impact that some people wants to revist the citizenship law to limit citizenship birthright. Just because it is a small issue doesn't mean you can ignore it. A small issue can lead to a huge problem.

I hear you. Actually if Canada is spending more money than they bring in then I will argue it is in no position to have any compassionate programs. Do you agree?

I hear you on the small doesnt mean we ignore.

Hence I ask the question. How much should PGP be reduced to? 0.1% increase? ie 5,000 spots or 10,000 people? Or less?

How much?

Or should it be just cancel PGP altogether since Canada is in serious debt problem and really should not be trying to afford to be charitable.

Why are you so reluctant to quantify it?

 

[screech339]

One of the reasons parents dont want to move to canada is the long cold climate. If Canada had a tropical or Mediterranean climate, most of the parents will be begging their children to sponsor them to come to Canada.

Why do you think illegals in US want to have babies in US. So that their child can sponsor them for Green Card. There is no cap for parent sponsorship in US. They are qualitied to sponsor them once they meet minimum income requirement.

 

[nayr69sg]

One of the reasons parents dont want to move to canada is the long cold climate. If Canada had a tropical or Mediterranean climate, most of the parents will be begging their children to sponsor them to come to Canada.

Why do you think illegals in US want to have babies in US. So that their child can sponsor them for Green Card. There is no cap for parent sponsorship in US. They are qualitied to sponsor them once they meet minimum income requirement.

You wont give a number as to how many PGP we should take. You also wont say outright that we should cancel PGP.

Sigh.

I guess that's how it is, complain complain complain, but when asked what should we do or what do you want actually done.......the reply is complain complain complain.

No wonder it is so hard to get anything done in Canada.

Anyway for the record, I think many here will tell you increase the numbers of PGP! only 10,000? increase to 20,000! And this is what the politicians hear.

So if the rest of the Canadians will just only complain complain complain and go round and round about the bush and wont tell the politicians what exactly they want (eg how many PGP or cancel PGP outright) then.....sorry......LOL!

 

[canuck78]

I agree with you.

So how many PGP parents/grandparents would keep the negative impact low enough for you? This was my original question. But your answer was for the purpose of reducing backlogs.

So how many parents/grandparents can Canada afford to take in as a charitable program?

The Government of Canada has deemed that 10,000 spots or 20,000 people count a year is the number they will take in. I am guessing they have done their numbers?

If you consider Canada's population is 35 million people, then an increase of 20,000 people is a 0.057% increase in the population. Granted this entire 0.057% is likely all in the elderly aging population.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/seniors-action-report.html

If you go by that report they say that about 7 million of the 35 million population of Canada is aged >65 in 2020.

So an increase of 20,000 is an increase of 0.286% of the population aged >65 in Canada.

I think those numbers are pretty small don't you think? 0.057% increase in population overall. or 0.286% increase in the elderly population. Another way to say it is for every existing 350 elderly people >65 years old we add 1 more every year with the PGP. Does that sound like a drastic increase in elderly people overall that will cause our healthcare system to collapse?

How much lower should it go?

Federal government runs PGP but provinces pay for healthcare. The provinces were likely never consulted. The program is a popular issue with immigrant voters. It is one of the key policies mentioned in certain regions when people campaign and the fact that enrolment has been increased under the Liberals.

 

[screech339]

You wont give a number as to how many PGP we should take. You also wont say outright that we should cancel PGP.

Sigh.

I guess that's how it is, complain complain complain, but when asked what should we do or what do you want actually done.......the reply is complain complain complain.

No wonder it is so hard to get anything done in Canada.

Anyway for the record, I think many here will tell you increase the numbers of PGP! only 10,000? increase to 20,000! And this is what the politicians hear.

So if the rest of the Canadians will just only complain complain complain and go round and round about the bush and wont tell the politicians what exactly they want (eg how many PGP or cancel PGP outright) then.....sorry......LOL!

I can't quantify an suitable number until I see the whole picture, including the impact it has on Canada health care. There must have been a good reason to go with 5000 cap. The only reason the liberal upped the cap is purely for political votes. The Harper government must have had a good reason to go with 5000 that you and I are not seeing. Until I see evidence and documentation on their impact I can't quantify. Maybe 1000 is good enough. Maybe 20000. I cant say one way or another. Maybe it's 5000 until backlog is completely cleared and then it's 30000. I need to know the whole picture including manpower and resources and social impact before I can say numbers. It's not for me to say. To me 5000 is a reasonable starting point. I had no issue with 5000 until backlog is cleared and then determined the proper numbers. A balanced numbered.

Increasing the cap to 20000 was a purely a liberal political play without realizing the purpose of 5000 cap was for in the first place. They only increased it because it was Harper that put the cap in place. If Chretien were to put on cap on PGP instead of Harper, Trudeau would have left the cap alone.

 

[nayr69sg]

I can't quantity an suitable number until I see the whole picture, including the impact it has on Canada health care. There must have been a good reason to go with 5000 cap. The only reason the liberal upped the cap is purely for poltical votes. The Harper government must have had a good reason to go with 5000 that you and I are not seeing. Until I see evidence and documentation on their impact I can't quantify. Maybe 1000 is good enough. Maybe 20000. I cant say one way or another. Maybe it 5000 until backlog is completely cleared and then it 30000. I need to know the whole picture including manpower and resources and social impact before I can say numbers. It's not for me to say. To me 5000 is reasonable starting point. I had no issue with 5000 until backlog is cleared and then determined the proper numbers. A balanced numbered.

Increasing the cap to 10000 is purely a liberal poltical play without it realizing the purpose of 5000 cap was for in the first place. They only increased it because it was Harper's cap. If Chretien put on cap on PGP instead of Harper, Trudeau would have left the cap alone.

It is interesting that you say you need to have more information and the whole picture in order to quantify a suitable number for PGP.

But yet without all the information and whole picture you can say that the current PGP numbers are too many and will overburden our healthcare system?

I have given some figures to show in relative terms what 20,000 PGP numbers means. It is 0.057% of the overall population. And 0.286% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 350 elderly aged >65 years.

If it drops to 10,000 then it is 0.0285% of the overall population and 0.143% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 700 elderly people.

If it drops to 5,000 then it is 0.01425% of the overall population and 0.00715% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 1400 elderly people aged above 65.

0.00715% is like negligible when most people talk about these numbers.

Yes no overall picture and all but 0.00715%!

 

[canuck78]

It is interesting that you say you need to have more information and the whole picture in order to quantify a suitable number for PGP.

But yet without all the information and whole picture you can say that the current PGP numbers are too many and will overburden our healthcare system?

I have given some figures to show in relative terms what 20,000 PGP numbers means. It is 0.057% of the overall population. And 0.286% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 350 elderly aged >65 years.

If it drops to 10,000 then it is 0.0285% of the overall population and 0.143% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 700 elderly people.

If it drops to 5,000 then it is 0.01425% of the overall population and 0.00715% of the elderly population. 1 PGP for every 1400 elderly people aged above 65.

0.00715% is like negligible when most people talk about these numbers.

Yes no overall picture and all but 0.00715%!

This year PGP was approximately 27k which could easily mean 40k seniors. This isn’t a one time program so your statistics don’t work. It isn’t about percentage compared to existing senior population. Canada is already trying to offset their ageing population by having young people and you g families immigrate. By adding more seniors you are somewhat defeating the purpose. Think almost all can agree that access healthcare is one of the big reasons parents immigrate. Let’s take Bramptom for example. I can imagine that there is a good chance that at least 1K of PGP applicants may be headed to Bramptom. Unfortunately the hospital in that area is not even close to meeting the needs of the current population so does it make sense to add more seniors? That is the type of analysis that needs to be done.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6447872/brampton-health-care-emergency/

 

[TorontoFerrari]

Is there any other thread who provides the information ONLY on PGP 2020 program instead of this irrelevant discussion?

 

[Copingwithlife]

Is there any other thread who provides the information ONLY on PGP 2020 program instead of this irrelevant discussion?

Easy google
No information has been released yet for the 2020 period

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/details-parents-grandparents-coming-soon.html