PGP 2025

[Copingwithlife]

At least people and the Governments are now talking about this

It’s unsustainable

“It's about treating immigrants as full citizens — people whose family ties matter just as much as anyone else's.”

And not ONCE has the Government posted that it’s immigrants right to bring their parents over

If you can’t live without them , then as someone mentioned you’re a citizen you’re free to move back to them

https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1m7hkpc/alberta_concerned_with_federal_plan_to_accept

 

[armoured]

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.

It would strengthen the argument if there were any actual numbers behind it. So far all we've got is a list of vague potential financial/fiscal contributions - with no data behind the costs.

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?

My point overall is: we (the public) do not seem to have any accounting of the actual cost. (As far as I can tell IRCC does not, either).

“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.

I'm quite happy working with estimates - IF we get some figures on what the costs are. Sure, there are oecd/other reports that COULD be used to add up a cost/benefit estimate - BUT NO ONE HAS DONE THAT. Not even the cost side.

Until such time as actual estimates are made, it's worse than just subjective estimates - it's just meaningless handwaving.

It might be acceptable - on some level - for a pilot project, or a one-off emergency thing for a couple thousand people.

But we have a very STRONG reason to doubt that this stands up to the usual, normal idea behind most Canadian immigration, that if you bring in people young enough, it'll work out over the lifetime as they work and pay taxes. (Some will do better than others, some will be a net cost to the treasury, but in big numbers, should be okay. )

Instead we've got a program with a completely different premise: they're coming in old enough that significant percentage will not work for long, AND we have extremely light financial requirements for the sponsors, AND they're old enough that - guaranteed - many will take more out of the health/old age support programs than they could possibly contribute. And on the positive side? No estimates.

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.

No, that's poor reasoning. We should pause programs that have LESS benefit than others. Let in people who will likely be here, working, for 30+ years or more. (Statistically, that's basically going to be - on average - those that are 35 years of age or less). Super-qualified people above that - sure, for obvious reasons (more likely to be higher earners now/in future). Plenty of other specific adjustments that could be made for eg health professionals and etc, as needed. All pretty normal.

What doesn't fit in a simple prioritization? Costs for groups who are KNOWN to have less propensity to work / higher propensity to use healthcare.

But we don’t, because we recognize that policy also reflects values, not just spreadsheets.

PGP isn't about charity or sentimentality.

Without numbers, it very much is about charity and 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.

It's a nice soundbite. But I don't think it's true, that all family ties are remotely 'as defensible' as others - which is the principle you're sneakily trying to slip in here. I don't agree with that statement of it. I think the principle is (broadly) that immediate family ties (in the narrow definition, parents + dependent children) are held to be more important than extended family.

That principle - immediate family ties are more important than extended family - is very much what is reflected in policy.* We are allowed (as the current policy does) to make value judgments - prioritization - about whether a policy of family reunification is logical for (largely elderly) parents. (Heck, we already do so by making random selection a test for participation - there's already a value judgment in there, that those family ties do NOT matter as much as for immediate family members, that it can be run as a lottery.)

And if one matters much less than the other, to the point that we demonstrably and specifically limit totals using a fixed annual quota, it seems reasoanble to me to ask for cost-benefit analysis. Or at least the bloody costs.

*Notwithstanding the govt of Quebec these days, alas.

 

[canuck78]

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.

Your logic makes no sense. The argument would be for regional distribution of the PGP quota not a country cap if the goal is to minimize pressure on infrastructure.

 

[canuck78]

At least people and the Governments are now talking about this

It’s unsustainable

“It's about treating immigrants as full citizens — people whose family ties matter just as much as anyone else's.”

And not ONCE has the Government posted that it’s immigrants right to bring their parents over

If you can’t live without them , then as someone mentioned you’re a citizen you’re free to move back to them

https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1m7hkpc/alberta_concerned_with_federal_plan_to_accept

So strange that this issue got traction this year when quota is fairly reasonable compared to the insanity of the past few years. Healthcare crisis certainly didn’t start this year. Have been trying to highlight this policy’s impact on healthcare to the media and politicians for a decade with minimal interest. Understood politicians not wanting to get involved but the journalists reporting on major healthcare system issues not wanting to highlight PGP and it’s feasibility surprised me.

 

[steaky]

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.

No alternative to LICO is needed. Can use the current LICO. Why a provision that these investment must be Canadian investment (i.e REITs, bluechip stocks of Canadian companies, etc.)? Can't they invest in Canadian apparel brands such as Canada Goose?

 

[armoured]

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.

No. Skewed in the proportion that they represent in the relevant population is not 'skewed,' it's a lack of skew. That's nonsense.

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.

But if they 'dominate the intake' because that's the percentage of the eligible pool, then they're not a narrow demographic. That's just an oxymoron, and a self-evidently ridiculous claim.

So yes, the system is technically fair in the sense that it treats all applicants equally at the draw stage.

'Technically fair' is a pretty darn good start. What are these 'upstream factors' you're referring to?

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.

I don't know what you mean by 'larger upstream factors.'

60-70% is a massive exaggeration. Even if it was 50%, it would still not represent anything remotely like 'monopolization.' Your claims are simply not supported (the actual figures were that in recent years no country has been more than ~31%, and most years from 2019-2024 were about 25-27%. Prior to 2018, below 20%, mstly below 15% (although I didn't go earlier than 2015).

And of course: no potential applicants from new PRs from those 2021-24 vintages yet have three years of income, and the PGP pool is still from 2020, meaning it was predominantly applicants who immigrated from ~2017 or before - when they were 18% or less of the PR admittances.

So to date, there is no plausible way to claim that any nationality has 'dominated' PGP applications. It probably hasn't gone above about one-fifth yet.

Now if you have ANY actual info on this - not just your made-up numbers - please show them.

Could those numbers grow in future? Maybe. But not to 60-70%, not unless something else changes dramatically - and there's at present no basis to believe that.

This is just fearmongering.

Now: You say "it’s not irrational — or prejudiced — to question whether that aligns with broader policy goals." But 'that' - the 60-70% - is demonstrably false.

I think it's rational to question whether the arguments of someone who's so massively exaggerated the actual situation, and made claims about skew and 'domination', are being made in good faith. If the 'questions' about broader policy goals were well founded, no need to make such patently false claims.

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.

I've already said I don't - in principal - have an issue with the idea. Just what you've claimed about how it applies to the PGP - as shown above - contains exaggeration, poor reasoning, etc. That's why I warned off carryign it further in this particular discussion.

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.

You want to accuse ME of 'lazy rhetorical moves'? Your claims above are foolish. Now, that's lazy.

You're not 'arguing policy' if your claims are nonsense.

And to be clear: I didn't accuse you of prejudice. I said your analysis was either illogical or *possibly* something worse, like prejudice.

Well, obviously illogical and non-factual. Continue to argue the point and I'll really start to wonder.

 

[rcincanada2019]

No alternative to LICO is needed. Can use the current LICO. Why a provision that these investment must be Canadian investment (i.e REITs, bluechip stocks of Canadian companies, etc.)? Can't they invest in Canadian apparel brands such as Canada Goose?

Current LICO is too low.

I don't get your point on investing in Canadian apparel brands. Do you get dividends on such? how do you profit from it? Is the "etc." from my example not clear enough?

 

[steaky]

Current LICO is too low.

I don't get your point on investing in Canadian apparel brands. Do you get dividends on such? how do you profit from it? Is the "etc." from my example not clear enough?

It's called Low Income cut-off. Is the "such as" from my example not clear enough?

 

[steaky]

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.

And why a provision that these investment must be Canadian investment? Even BC Ferries selected a Chinese shipyard to build 4 vessels for them.

 

[rcincanada2019]

It's called Low Income cut-off. Is the "such as" from my example not clear enough?

And why a provision that these investment must be Canadian investment? Even BC Ferries selected a Chinese shipyard to build 4 vessels for them.

Uhm, what exactly is your point? Which part of "Current LICO is too low." is not clear enough for you? Was I asking for the LICO definition?

Current LICO is too low based on official IRCC website:

https://ircc.canada.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1445&top=14

How is investing in non-Canadian companies benefit Canada? And how is a Chinese shipyard related to the current discussion? And you didn't answer how one could invest in brands such as Canada Goose and profit from it? Please ELI5, and please don't go around in circles and divert to other things.