So assuming the lottery is here to stay, then instead focus on ways to make it better and fairer. So ideas like:
Thank you, I think this is a great start. If we can come up with something sensible, possibly someone may take a note in the govt and improve the process.
- reducing ineligible entries, by doing more checks at lottery stage or charging non-refundable fees to enter
I think this year is much better than the first. They gather quite a lot of information to minimize duplicate submissions, but there will still be ineligible people applying. So, possibly:
1. Sponsor does electronic submission of only their part of the application (pretty much just ID and income), and number of people he/she wishes to sponsor
2. Eligible sponsors are selected and lottery conducted only among these applicants
3. Selected applicants are invited to apply
This way there will be no duplicates to clean, all selected applicants are real and eligible.
- giving preference or extra chances in lottery to those that qualified and applied previously but were not selected
You are addressing my biggest issue with the existing lottery.
While it is a fair system within a single year of applications, it is not fair on a multi-year basis.
The biggest question, what is the formula to use. What is a fair way of weighing someone who was unsuccessful for 5 years vs someone applying for the first time?
With the current lottery system the "half-life" of applicants is about 7-10 years. That means, if 100k eligible people want to sponsor today, in 7-10 years 50k people from this original pool will still not be selected. Take another 7-10 years and 25k are still waiting from people who are technically eligible today.
Prior to 2011 there were approximately 25000 new applicants a year, but only about 15000 were processed, that's why the backlog was growing.
Right now they accept 10000, and process about 20000, thus working on reducing the official backlog, eventually minimizing it.
The way it is designed, though, is that the unofficial backlog (people not selected by the lottery) can still grow to any amount.
- giving preference to those with younger parents who may actually contribute to Canada's workforce
There is a contrary argument, that elder parents require more care, thus should be processed first - some of these cases actually fall under humanitarian immigration and are processed as such.
Regardless, this is discrimination by age and won't go.
------
Another point to discuss is the income cut-off level.
Stricter - reduces the backlog, but makes harder for, say, single moms to sponsor their parents.
But it is already a privilege, people with low income can't sponsor, so how far do we go.
Should the income be increased until the backlog is stable / not growing?