PGP 2025

[rcincanada2019]

Why couldn't they invest money in the stock, bond, ETF, mutual fund market and contribute to the tax revenue? Why do they have to be able and willing to work?

If they have money to invest, why not? But then, what is the percentage of PGPs are really financially sound to have that money to invest? Let's be realistic here...

 

[armoured]

If they have money to invest, why not? But then, what is the percentage of PGPs are really financially sound to have that money to invest? Let's be realistic here...

And what is the minimum amount to invest? How to ensure it's all invested domestically, not tax advantaged? Is that money locked in?

I mean bluntly - how much does CRA truly control/make sure that all world income / assets properly accounted for? There are filing requirements, but we pretty much know that the 'gaps' (income/assets shielded or hidden) goes up with wealth.

Leaving aside whether a policy can even be formulated, it's going to have administrative and incentive issues, unintended consequences, etc.

We accept these trade-offs with younger immigrants/professionals because larger numbers / works out overall. Not clear it works for PGP at all.

 

[rcincanada2019]

And what is the minimum amount to invest? How to ensure it's all invested domestically, not tax advantaged? Is that money locked in?

I mean bluntly - how much does CRA truly control/make sure that all world income / assets properly accounted for? There are filing requirements, but we pretty much know that the 'gaps' (income/assets shielded or hidden) goes up with wealth.

Leaving aside whether a policy can even be formulated, it's going to have administrative and incentive issues, unintended consequences, etc.

We accept these trade-offs with younger immigrants/professionals because larger numbers / works out overall. Not clear it works for PGP at all.

Good point!

Again, this is just my opinion. Maybe have an alternative to LICO for sponsors, something like if the parents/grand parents have enough to invest which would yield them a net dividend income (after taxes) of at least the equivalent of gross minimum wage. And a provision that these investments must be Canadian investments (i.e. REITs, bluechip stocks of Canadian companies, etc.).

While the investor may only pay minimum taxes if the investment portfolio is well structured, still investors pay taxes on these investments. Better than not paying any taxes at all. Plus, they invest on Canadian economy.

 

[canuck78]

Unless these parents and grand parents are able and willing to work to contribute to the tax revenue. There are a lot of Canadians who delay retirement because they cannot afford the basic cost of living on pension alone. My wife has a colleague who's 70 and still working.

I may sound callous, but even that small fraction could have been given to immigrants of working age who could still contribute to the national tax revenue.

I think the LICO should be increased to at least twice the current requirement if the PGP is to continue. Just my opinion, though.

Let’s add the cost of OAS and GIS after 10 yrs to the list along with many other low income senior programs. Realistically even if they worked they would likely be working for years not decades. Agree LICO is way too low. I assume many families are accessing places like foodbanks after their parents arrive and even perhaps before. If you live in subsided housing you still qualify for PGP. Even if LICO is doubled most families could not absorb something like the longterm care fee (2.5k+/month), many couldn’t afford to stop working to care for a sick parent, have the funds to care for a family member at home which can be very expensive (often a hospital bed rental, incontinence supplies, etc.), etc. Many Canadians also struggle to afford care as they age so the pool of services for low income seniors, like donated and free mobility aids for example, is already under stress. Until there is more bed capacity in LTC and hospitals, shorter wait times to access specialists and for procedures and everyone has access to primary care (especially all seniors) tough to justify adding more seniors to an already very large cohort. These seniors will also have access to to things like free dental care while it remains unaffordable for many working in Canada which also seems wrong.

 

[Greninja]

Unless these parents and grand parents are able and willing to work to contribute to the tax revenue. There are a lot of Canadians who delay retirement because they cannot afford the basic cost of living on pension alone. My wife has a colleague who's 70 and still working.

I may sound callous, but even that small fraction could have been given to immigrants of working age who could still contribute to the national tax revenue.

I think the LICO should be increased to at least twice the current requirement if the PGP is to continue. Just my opinion, though.

The primary focus should be on attracting high-quality immigrants, not just individuals who are able to work. Sponsored parents, for instance, often bring significant financial resources into Canada, particularly when supported by strong, well-established sponsors. That said, IRCC should consider implementing country-specific caps to ensure diversity and balance, while also raising the eligibility standards for permanent residency (PGP immigrant should come from those PR sponsors).

 

[rcincanada2019]

The primary focus should be on attracting high-quality immigrants, not just individuals who are able to work. Sponsored parents, for instance, often bring significant financial resources into Canada, particularly when supported by strong, well-established sponsors. That said, IRCC should consider implementing country-specific caps to ensure diversity and balance, while also raising the eligibility standards for permanent residency (PGP immigrant should come from those PR sponsors).

I agree with you 101%

But then, looking at the current LICO, I'm not sure how these sponsored parents/grandparents can bring significant financial resources.

Unfortunately, Canada would never implement country caps due to "political correctness".

As for high-quality immigrants, IRCC favours more those with Masters or PhDs rather than much needed skilled workers and healthcare workers. Lots of news wherein Canada is "complaining" that the recent caps on TFW is hugely affecting the workforce by having worker shortages. Like, would you expect MS and PhDs to work as doctors and nurses (unless they have a degree in those fields) or construction workers? There was an Ontario registered nurse who was in the news lately who is going home because work permit is expiring and cannot get a work permit renewal. Note that this person is already a registered nurse in Ontario. And Canada is still complaining of shortages in these healthcare fields? Why still on WP? Person cannot get an ITA from recent draws.

For the past few years, you get maximum CRS points eligible for ITAs mostly if you have these higher degrees under your belt. I have ridden numerous Ubers and taxis driven by new immigrants who got in because of their MS and PhD. But working as drivers because they can't find any work related to their higher degrees. I am not saying Uber or taxi jobs are not worth it, but a person with MS or PhD is overqualified for these, don't you agree?

 

[canuck78]

The primary focus should be on attracting high-quality immigrants, not just individuals who are able to work. Sponsored parents, for instance, often bring significant financial resources into Canada, particularly when supported by strong, well-established sponsors. That said, IRCC should consider implementing country-specific caps to ensure diversity and balance, while also raising the eligibility standards for permanent residency (PGP immigrant should come from those PR sponsors).

So limit sponsorship to Canadian children/PRs with assets over 500k+ (higher based on family size) with a large part easily accessible not just home equity and/or with parents with a net worth over a million each and where investment income would be taxable in Canada. Limit access to low income senior programs and OAS/GIS. Sure that will be popular. It will certainly limit the pool of available applicants.

 

[armoured]

The primary focus should be on attracting high-quality immigrants, not just individuals who are able to work. Sponsored parents, for instance, often bring significant financial resources into Canada, particularly when supported by strong, well-established sponsors.

This assertion that sponsored parents 'often' bring significant resources - how do you know this? Is there any way to check this? It's certainly not a requirement, and the LICO and other factors are low. I have never seen ANY publication that even attempts to show overall that parents sponsored bring significant financial resources; I'm sure it's true of some of them, but I don't think one can just assume/assert this without some factual data source.

And what do you mean 'high-quality immigrants' if not able to work? Just bringing a lot of money?

Seems to me to be easier to focus on high quality immigrants of working age. If they have enough money to not work, fine. But to import people at or close to non-working age, with no requirement other than that they have children in Canada (ok, plus medical clearance) who make a minimal amount of money is NOT 'focussing on high quality immigrants.'

The only sense in which PGP supports immigration of 'high quality' is if we were to believe that there was a strong link between the best immigration candidates and their belief/understanding that they'd be able to sponsor their parents in future.

But we KNOW that this is not true - there is a very low chance of sponsoring one's parents in a reasonable period of time, and if there's any persistent belief in this, they are misled.

That said, IRCC should consider implementing country-specific caps to ensure diversity and balance, while also raising the eligibility standards for permanent residency (PGP immigrant should come from those PR sponsors).

This seems to be your hobby-horse topic, the country caps. I'd (charitably) grant that there are some pluses and minuses to having such a policy. It's not an idea that should be dismissed out of hand.

But on its own, it has very little to do with PGP, and I'd politely ask that you keep it separate from this discussion. I don't see how it adds anything and it distracts from the basic question, IMO.

 

[armoured]

Good point!

Again, this is just my opinion. Maybe have an alternative to LICO for sponsors, something like if the parents/grand parents have enough to invest which would yield them a net dividend income (after taxes) of at least the equivalent of gross minimum wage. And a provision that these investments must be Canadian investments (i.e. REITs, bluechip stocks of Canadian companies, etc.).

While the investor may only pay minimum taxes if the investment portfolio is well structured, still investors pay taxes on these investments. Better than not paying any taxes at all. Plus, they invest on Canadian economy.

I agree with your overall point. I mostly just wanted to underline that it's not so simple on a lot of levels, and would have a tendency to lead to some complicated policies to make it 'work' at a level that many would expect, and potentially have a lot of admin and overhead costs or require changes to laws/regulatory regimes that could be quite complex.

It seems to me overall what's lacking is: has there been any study to look at the benefits/costs of PGP? Costs/benefits of expanding it further? What basic changes to the existing one could make it 'work' at least at some level that seems basically fair to most and have at least minimal or break-even costs.

Right now, it doesn't seem to meet any reasonable expectation of fairness or cost-break even, just seems like a politically-charged program as a sop to some group of immigrants, and at (potentially) quite high cost.

 

[Greninja]

This assertion that sponsored parents 'often' bring significant resources - how do you know this? Is there any way to check this? It's certainly not a requirement, and the LICO and other factors are low. I have never seen ANY publication that even attempts to show overall that parents sponsored bring significant financial resources; I'm sure it's true of some of them, but I don't think one can just assume/assert this without some factual data source.

And what do you mean 'high-quality immigrants' if not able to work? Just bringing a lot of money?

Seems to me to be easier to focus on high quality immigrants of working age. If they have enough money to not work, fine. But to import people at or close to non-working age, with no requirement other than that they have children in Canada (ok, plus medical clearance) who make a minimal amount of money is NOT 'focussing on high quality immigrants.'

The only sense in which PGP supports immigration of 'high quality' is if we were to believe that there was a strong link between the best immigration candidates and their belief/understanding that they'd be able to sponsor their parents in future.

But we KNOW that this is not true - there is a very low chance of sponsoring one's parents in a reasonable period of time, and if there's any persistent belief in this, they are misled.

You raise valid points, and I agree it's important not to make broad claims without evidence. I wasn’t suggesting that all sponsored parents bring significant financial resources — but rather that it's not uncommon among those with well-established sponsors. While LICO thresholds are modest, many sponsors far exceed them. These sponsors often support their parents financially for years — including housing, healthcare gaps, and even travel — without public assistance. But you're right, hard data is lacking, and it would be useful for IRCC to track financial impact post-landing. I'd welcome more transparency on that front.

As for 'high-quality immigrants' — I'm not equating that purely with wealth or employment. My point is that immigration policy should aim to maximize long-term national benefit. Sponsored parents, while not economically productive in the traditional sense, may contribute in other ways — helping with childcare, enabling dual-income households, bringing pensions or savings, or even enabling intergenerational wealth transfer. These are soft contributions that don’t show up in GDP, but they matter.

 

[Greninja]

This seems to be your hobby-horse topic, the country caps. I'd (charitably) grant that there are some pluses and minuses to having such a policy. It's not an idea that should be dismissed out of hand.

But on its own, it has very little to do with PGP, and I'd politely ask that you keep it separate from this discussion. I don't see how it adds anything and it distracts from the basic question, IMO.

On the country caps — I appreciate your pushback. I brought it up because the PGP is heavily oversubscribed, and in the current lottery system, large-source countries dominate the intake. That leads to regional and systemic imbalances. A limited, well-designed cap could help ensure that PGP spots aren’t monopolized by a few demographics — making the process fairer and more sustainable long-term. So while it’s not central to the 'quality' question, I think it’s part of the broader policy discussion.

All that said, I think we agree that focusing on working-age immigrants with strong skills and/or financial means should remain Canada’s core strategy — I just believe there’s room to recognize that PGP can complement that if designed carefully, rather than being seen as inherently in conflict with it.

 

[armoured]

On the country caps — I appreciate your pushback. I brought it up because the PGP is heavily oversubscribed, and in the current lottery system, large-source countries dominate the intake. That leads to regional and systemic imbalances. A limited, well-designed cap could help ensure that PGP spots aren’t monopolized by a few demographics — making the process fairer and more sustainable long-term. So while it’s not central to the 'quality' question, I think it’s part of the broader policy discussion.

I disagree on the part I bolded. This attempt of yours just reiterates - in a different context - the idea that because some countries represent 'more' of the total % of immigrants (or recent immigrants or something), that they therefore represent 'more' (implied some unfair level of 'more') of the PGP spots.

But the claim that they are being 'monopolized' - sorry, I don't see any way to see that statement as anything but profoundly illogical.* (Or something worse, like prejudiced). That's not how monopolization works.

Put simply, if the pool of applicants for PGP is the total pool of PRs/citizens with eligible parents living abroad, and x% of that pool is some large-source country, their chances in the draw are still x%. (Arguably there's some underweighting, to the extent that those from countries with large shares of immigration in recent years aren't yet eligible).

In the current system, there's nothing that suggests it leads to monopolization - not unless you can explain some other mechanism, like the draws not being random. The eligibility is not by country, but by applicants' share of total applicants (which is in some way an indirect function in their % of the population), and after that, simple eligibility.

You might think there's more of one nationality in the pop than you think 'balanced' (and I can see some potential arguments about that, although obviously subjective).

But that's not monopolization, and certainly no underlying reason to think that it's 'unfair', at least without some further explanation or theory as to why that would be the case.

And frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort. This is a side-show that's not making you look good. Because see my * note.

* "iIlogical" here is very much a euphemism for stronger language about the validity of this claim - giving some (in my view) undeserved benefit of the doubt about the nature of statistics, or perhaps some unintentional misphrasing about what is meant (like leaving out text that would make it make sense).

 

[armoured]

Sponsored parents, while not economically productive in the traditional sense, may contribute in other ways — helping with childcare, enabling dual-income households, bringing pensions or savings, or even enabling intergenerational wealth transfer. These are soft contributions that don’t show up in GDP, but they matter.

Several of these soft contributions actually might show up in GDP, or at least other national accounts (financial etc).

But the problem with these 'soft contributions' - at least the non-economic/non-financial ones - are awfully subjective, and hard for a government to justify against perceived costs or other potential benefits.

Who's going to get up and defend "childcare benefits" (that accrue to those families and don't provide any obvious benefit to other Canadians) in the House? or these other ones, if they're not quantified?

Especially at a time when there's a shortage of housing and a shortage of / issues with access to healthcare. (Granted both thigns that govt should fix regardless, but these are scarce resources right now - which would certainly militate for pausing PGP for 5-10 years)

 

[Greninja]

I disagree on the part I bolded. This attempt of yours just reiterates - in a different context - the idea that because some countries represent 'more' of the total % of immigrants (or recent immigrants or something), that they therefore represent 'more' (implied some unfair level of 'more') of the PGP spots.

But the claim that they are being 'monopolized' - sorry, I don't see any way to see that statement as anything but profoundly illogical.* (Or something worse, like prejudiced). That's not how monopolization works.

Put simply, if the pool of applicants for PGP is the total pool of PRs/citizens with eligible parents living abroad, and x% of that pool is some large-source country, their chances in the draw are still x%. (Arguably there's some underweighting, to the extent that those from countries with large shares of immigration in recent years aren't yet eligible).

In the current system, there's nothing that suggests it leads to monopolization - not unless you can explain some other mechanism, like the draws not being random. The eligibility is not by country, but by applicants' share of total applicants (which is in some way an indirect function in their % of the population), and after that, simple eligibility.

You might think there's more of one nationality in the pop than you think 'balanced' (and I can see some potential arguments about that, although obviously subjective).

But that's not monopolization, and certainly no underlying reason to think that it's 'unfair', at least without some further explanation or theory as to why that would be the case.

And frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort. This is a side-show that's not making you look good. Because see my * note.

* "iIlogical" here is very much a euphemism for stronger language about the validity of this claim - giving some (in my view) undeserved benefit of the doubt about the nature of statistics, or perhaps some unintentional misphrasing about what is meant (like leaving out text that would make it make sense).

Appreciate the pushback, but I think you're missing the point — and frankly, you're over-interpreting what I said.

I'm not claiming there's some shadowy mechanism rigging the draw — no one said the process isn’t random. What I am saying is that in a system where demand far outstrips supply, and where a handful of countries account for the overwhelming majority of applicants, the results are predictably skewed. You can call it statistical inevitability instead of monopolization if that feels more precise — fine. But the outcome is the same: a narrow demographic ends up dominating the intake.

So yes, the system is technically fair in the sense that it treats all applicants equally at the draw stage. But that doesn’t mean it’s equitable or sustainable in practice. If one group makes up 60–70% of intake year after year because of larger upstream factors, it’s not irrational — or prejudiced — to question whether that aligns with broader policy goals.

What I’m suggesting — a limited, well-designed country cap — is hardly radical. We already use caps and quotas in all kinds of immigration streams to avoid overconcentration. This is about long-term balance and program integrity, not about punishing any group.

Also, just to be clear: accusing someone of prejudice because they bring up systemic imbalances is a lazy rhetorical move. If your point is strong, it should stand on its own. I'm here arguing policy — if you think the outcomes are fine as-is, say that. But don’t assume bad motives just because someone’s pointing out a flaw in the status quo.

 

[Greninja]

Several of these soft contributions actually might show up in GDP, or at least other national accounts (financial etc).

But the problem with these 'soft contributions' - at least the non-economic/non-financial ones - are awfully subjective, and hard for a government to justify against perceived costs or other potential benefits.

Who's going to get up and defend "childcare benefits" (that accrue to those families and don't provide any obvious benefit to other Canadians) in the House? or these other ones, if they're not quantified?

Especially at a time when there's a shortage of housing and a shortage of / issues with access to healthcare. (Granted both thigns that govt should fix regardless, but these are scarce resources right now - which would certainly militate for pausing PGP for 5-10 years)

Fair enough on the point that some of these soft contributions may show up indirectly in GDP or financial stats — but that actually strengthens my argument, not weakens it.

You say these contributions are “subjective” and “hard to justify” — but let’s be honest: that applies to a huge number of public policies. We subsidize everything from the arts to regional development to post-secondary education not because they have neat, immediate ROI, but because they serve broader societal goals. So why does the bar suddenly skyrocket when we’re talking about family reunification?

“Who’s going to get up in the House and defend childcare benefits that only help a few families?” Well — maybe someone who understands how dual-income participation does benefit the broader economy. Or someone who sees that intergenerational stability reduces long-term dependency on public services. You want quantification? There are entire OECD and StatsCan reports showing how family structure affects everything from educational outcomes to mental health to labor force participation. Just because it’s complex doesn’t make it irrelevant.

And about pausing the PGP due to “scarce resources” — if we start using housing and healthcare pressure as the metric for halting immigration programs, we’ll be pausing everything. The truth is, these shortages aren’t caused by sponsored seniors — they’re the result of chronic policy failures. Blaming PGP is a scapegoat move.

Governments don’t get to demand perfect quantification only when it’s politically convenient. If the standard is “prove direct benefit to other Canadians,” then let’s apply that across the board — to every subsidy, every tax credit, every infrastructure project. But we don’t, because we recognize that policy also reflects values, not just spreadsheets.

PGP isn't about charity or sentimentality. It's about treating immigrants as full citizens — people whose family ties matter just as much as anyone else's. That principle is just as defensible as any cost-benefit chart.