Been shadowing this thread and quietly reading the exchanges here. I can try and understand both sides of the conversation here.
I moved to Canada in 2017, and didn't have enough of a 3 year history last year for sponsorship. This is my first time sponsoring. I haven't got an invite yet, and TBH I don't expect to receive one as it's already been 3 days since they started inviting.
In my opinion, I think the lottery system is inherently unfair as many keep trying year-after-year with no guarantee of being able to sponsor. Whereas another person can apply just once or twice, and then get invited just by sheer "luck". Now, most of you I think would agree that no modern state can be allocating resources on the basis of just "luck". There has to be a better system in place.
I do believe that something like an EE type system would be the best in this case. It should take into account the following factors -
- Age of parents (older parents should be given priority)
- Earning of the sponsor (Earning more does mean there's a lower chance of them being dependent on government benefits)
- Number of times the sponsor has tied (having a person try repeatedly without success only adds to frustration, and can also lead to them looking at other countries in the long run - Canada will lose precious human capital this way)
- Whether they own a property (shows responsibility & whether they can care for their parents)
- A pool of potential sponsors should be made this way, and the sponsors keep updating their incomes based on NOAs, which would then adjust their position in the queue. Every year, the Government pulls out the highest ranked candidates based on their scores, and issues them the invitations. The points can be updated in real-time since they have the dates of birth of the parents/grandparents, NOA numbers, and when the profile was created in the sponsorship bank.
This will dilute the inherent unfairness in the lottery system where resources are allocated by "luck" and other factors will begin to play a part; as they should in any fair system.
I also believe that along with the sponsorship forms, a deposit of CAD 600 per person sponsored should be taken to desist people from unfair means. and irresponsibility of blocking positions even though they don't qualify. This deposit should be returned to them if -
- They are successfully selected to sponsor, and
- On submitting their forms the numbers claimed match with the NOAs deeming them eligible
The above will also encourage two things -
- People will be made more truthful to the Government by disclosing all their income, as having a higher number in the NOA would better their chances of getting picked + add more revenue to the CRA (as a business owner, I know the number of people who have approached me offering services, but wanting to get paid in "cash" thereby encouraging a black/unaccounted for earnings which leads to a loss to the exchequer)
- Duplicate applications will be discouraged. I know of a couple of people in my friend circle where 3 siblings are living in Canada and all 3 have submitted forms to sponsor their parents. That's thrice the chances of getting picked compared to only a single person applying. (In this case, there would be a CAD 1200 deposit charged from all 3 siblings, and if they get pulled out and don't sponsor blocking other people's ability, they are penalised by forfeiting their deposits)
I don't buy the argument that somehow having a points-based system like EE is unfair to anyone. It in fact encourages meritocracy! And meritocracy is the basis on which modern successful nations are built... not by allocating resources randomly...