Parents Sponsorship - Stop Immigration Lottery
- Thread starter 4parents
- Start date
Just in response to the other poster. Personally I couldn't care less if parents or any other newly immigrants buy homes here or not, just saying there are usually 2 views to any issue.
I don't understand why you are so obsessed with this.
You can probably also show studies that females in general incur less costs and wait times to healthcare than males, or people from specific countries incur less costs than other countries, or certain races incur less costs than other races.
But there is zero chance we suddenly start saying mothers will be given higher priority vs fathers, or parents from certain countries over another. Same with parents income levels. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. You are looking obsessed continually arguing it.
Having LICO to begin with ensures parents will not be living in poverty when they arrive and that is all that matters. This point is already considered and closed out.
I have taken your point. And I agree IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
I am merely stating that we should STOP TALKING ABOUT COSTS.
The PGP program is humanitarian. The lottery system while not perfect is a way to allocate PGP spots randomly to applicants regardless of race, religion, language or socioeconomic status.
The priority is that it should be given fairly. Canada can afford it.
What irks me is when people start linking costs. Like some people saying how rich people should just go for Supervisa and not PGP without any rebuttal.
Fair is fair. Don't discriminate people who are poor or rich. It will never end.
Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to argue.
There are only 2 costs that matter and that can result in parents refusal
1. Sponsor not meeting LICO
2. Parents not passing excessive demand cost test
Both of these costs are very important to consider even if it is a H&C program. If we are all in agreement here I have no idea why there are multiple pages on this thread arguing this.
Rob_TO, my thoughts moved towards breaking down this cost argument from what DollyM wrote. Buletruck had also alluded to this prior to DollyM's post.
You see the arguments often shift in this manner. From equality in selection to then saying elderly are a drain and that is why with skilled immigrant programs we use a merit based system.
However as I have shown, if you use a merit based system for elderly (face it they CAN contribute and different SES groups would use differing amount of healthcare resources) then the argument shifts back towards discrimination and inequality.
I just wanted to show that the merit system CAN be applied to the PGP. It is not true that ALL PGP never contribute anything to Canada.
Let's stick to the equality and non discrimination and not bring costs into the picture because it really insults those of us who know that our parents can contribute and will contribute if they came here.
I agree wholeheartedly with you on the lottery system and being fair. This is I admit a change in stance from what I had before. Having those debates with you have made me change my view to agree that the lottery system is actually the fairest way to allocate spots despite it being detrimental to my personal cause. So thank you Rob_TO for tolerating me.
The costs argument that I am responding to isn't the Sponsor meeting LICO or parent not passing excessive demand cost test. It is the blatant accusation of some who say that PGP is nothing but a drain and that the PGP never contribute anything.
PGP group can contribute. A simple one would be helping with childcare. Allowing couples to both work and reduce expenses on childcare fees.
And as I mentioned there will be estate duty on their assets upon demise. Also any new immigrant will require additional space (housing expenditure), appliances etc. If there are accompanying funds from overseas, it is an influx and boost to the Canadian economy.
Rob_TO, do you see where I'm coming from? I take offense when people imply that all PGP are a burden. It is not necessarily the case. In fact if you tried using a merit based system you CAN choose the ones who will contribute. However I am NOT proposing that there be a merit based system. I used to. But I no longer support discrimination. On the other hand, when someone starts saying that my parents will come here and do nothing but consume resources and contribute nothing, I take offense to that. If you truly believe that to be the over riding concern then go support a merit based system. Otherwise please don't bring this up. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Last edited:
Of course there are some contribution to the economy, and every sponsor/parents situation is unique. But looking at averages (so take a random sampling of 20K parents who immigrated in any given year), the total cost to all Canadians (solely in costs and wait times related to healthcare) of the PGP program will outweigh the economic benefits, strictly talking in dollars. And much of the economic benefit will really only affect the sponsor's own family (like getting free child care).
Canada has done cost studies on all their immigration programs to try and better understand economic and other social impacts. As well there are numerous cost studies done on average costs to healthcare for someone starting at the typical age of an immigrating parents (around 65) and over the remainder of their life. I highly doubt you could find more than a handful of cases where the actual dollar amount an immigrating parent generated for the Canadian economy as a whole, was greater than the dollar amount cost they incurred from the healthcare system.
Simply put parents program is H&C/Family reunification first, so it's pointless to argue if parents are contributing to or draining resources. Most importantly it makes Canadians happier that their own parents are living here with them, so is a good thing morally. As long as overall Canada can handle the cost with minimal impact to other Canadians, then the program should continue as-is with equal access to it for all that qualify.
Handful because so far it has been a fairly random process. Calculations can be made such that we had a merit based system where Canada only took in immigrating parents who could generate a positive balance. We could. But for reasons we have agreed upon we don't want to.
I absolutely agree with you on this one.
So I hope people stop saying that PGP is a drain and how we tax payers have to pay and why should we pay and what not. We can and could have a merit based system such that only immigrating parents who can generate a positive balance are given PGP. But we don't want to discriminate. Hence we have to accept the lottery system and any tax payer dollars that go with the program.If you truly feel strongly against this expense by Canada, then by all means go support a merit based system.
When parents arrive on super-visa, the only thing they can do is basically stay at home, and if the child has kids - stay with kids. They cannot study and cannot work. Many people will die of boredom if they are not occupied by something meaningful. Depending on parents age the insurance may cost as low as $1500 per year, so in some cases it's quite affordable even for not-rich families.
Applying for study permit and work permit is super hard for them because of the age and often poor English, but many, if they had PR, would start their own small business to serve their own community.
For the above reasons long stays on super-visa is not an option for many, even if parents are relatively young and can afford the insurance fee for a few years.
Agree, parents are not exactly foreigners. But just to note, from the experience I see, once parents arrive (selling property in own country), they give money to the kids and kids buy property in their own name - this way the family avoids the transfer tax, but since the cost is same either way, just on the next transfer the family will owe more taxes, so eventually it does not matter, govt will always get their cut.
Prices going up is a *good* thing for the economy - when done at moderate levels. But look at Toronto, there are so many professionals who want to live downtown, rent prices are skyrocketing. Yet, more skilled workers is a good thing for the economy.
I was away just one day
But thank you for noticing.You will also notice I generally post only in the EST evenings - simply don't have much other time on hand
I think is a terrific idea, something very reasonable and (hopefully) easily doable by the govt.
Question:
IF this logic was introduced for 2019, should they do:
a) Ask people for their 2017 and 2018 lottery ticket numbers, and corresponding NOAs - so maximum number of entries will be 3 in 2019, or
b) Ask people to submit all previous NOAs, and calculate for how many years each person was eligible, and then give an additional ticket for each year.