+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Need support on petition to eliminate PGP lottery system

vpkasbek

Hero Member
Nov 22, 2016
716
215
Visa Office......
CPC -Sydney; Secondary visa office: CPC-Ottawa
NOC Code......
0213
App. Filed.......
Jan 03, 2017
Doc's Request.
Generic Reminder Email: RPRF, Passport Bio, Sch A, PCC. 06.12.2017; Updated Sch A form 09.25.2017
Nomination.....
Dec 15, 2016
AOR Received.
Mar 07, 2017
IELTS Request
Sent with package
Med's Request
Dec 15, 2017 (Upfront eMedicals); Feb 12, 2018 (Request from CIC)
Med's Done....
Feb 14, 2018 (Passed)
Interview........
Not applicable; BGIP 2: Feb 27, 2018
Passport Req..
Apr 13, 2018
VISA ISSUED...
Apr 19, 2018
What is your solution and what does ”fair eligibility” mean? That is the issue and IRCC is not going to change it with a general statement. Not being fair is not a reason for IRCC to re-vamp the lottery system. There has to be concrete and realistic guidelines that don’t cost any more money in time and resources.
Good question. There might be different perspectives on the fairness aspect but at least eliminating ‘selection by luck’ element and determining eligibility based on sponsor ability to financially support and not lean on gov programs, establishment of those being sponsored in their home country and assessment of benefits with family reunification. Again, these are just some of the possible others to evaluate both objectively and subjectively on individual case merit.
 
 

Naturgrl

VIP Member
Apr 5, 2020
37,963
7,814
Good question. There might be different perspectives on the fairness aspect but at least eliminating ‘selection by luck’ element and determining eligibility based on sponsor ability to financially support and not lean on gov programs, establishment of those being sponsored in their home country and assessment of benefits with family reunification. Again, these are just some of the possible others to evaluate both objectively and subjectively on individual case merit.
Your idea will not pass either if you base it on income and ability to financially support parents. All profiles have to meet LICO. If the government says it is based on financial ability then people will say that is fixed towards high income families.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

vpkasbek

Hero Member
Nov 22, 2016
716
215
Visa Office......
CPC -Sydney; Secondary visa office: CPC-Ottawa
NOC Code......
0213
App. Filed.......
Jan 03, 2017
Doc's Request.
Generic Reminder Email: RPRF, Passport Bio, Sch A, PCC. 06.12.2017; Updated Sch A form 09.25.2017
Nomination.....
Dec 15, 2016
AOR Received.
Mar 07, 2017
IELTS Request
Sent with package
Med's Request
Dec 15, 2017 (Upfront eMedicals); Feb 12, 2018 (Request from CIC)
Med's Done....
Feb 14, 2018 (Passed)
Interview........
Not applicable; BGIP 2: Feb 27, 2018
Passport Req..
Apr 13, 2018
VISA ISSUED...
Apr 19, 2018
Your idea will not pass either if you base it on income and ability to financially support parents. All profiles have to meet LICO. If the government says it is based on financial ability then people will say that is fixed towards high income families.
The LICO qualification applies even under PGP today so essentially no change there. I could be wrong though. Those who don’t receive an invite through PGP are opting for supervisas as promoted by government however that favours the advantaged pool as well since the insurance premium is quite a sum anyways.
 

armoured

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2015
15,007
7,642
That’s so convenient for the wealthy to just buy their way out
And this is the issue with the PGP program overall: it is an economic loser for Canada overall. Therefore, there is essentially no universe in which a government (any government, I mean no party) will agree to have this wide open with no caps (or if no caps, it works the same just you wait however many years as it takes, which - as before here - could stretch close to a decade).

The only solution to make it acceptable for Canada economically with no caps is to charge money - large amounts.

Which, in Canada, will get crucified on exactly the grounds you bring up - just another gift to the wealthy. It will never fly, politically.

That's why I am absolutely NOT kidding when I say a crappy lottery with a small cap backed by the supervisa program (basically a self-funded quasi-permanent residence that primarily benefits the semi-wealthy) is a perfect compromise.

Everyone is unhappy but it's only a modest economic hit, it leaves a little bit of hope, it provides a reasonably practical way for semi-well off parents to spend as much time as they want - and it doesn't touch Canada's political third rail by directly confronting the equality/"Benefits the Rich!" issue.
 

steaky

VIP Member
Nov 11, 2008
14,241
1,614
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
The LICO qualification applies even under PGP today so essentially no change there. I could be wrong though. Those who don’t receive an invite through PGP are opting for supervisas as promoted by government however that favours the advantaged pool as well since the insurance premium is quite a sum anyways.
The insurance premium is little in comparison.
 
 

Buletruck

VIP Member
May 18, 2015
6,663
2,520
The LICO qualification applies even under PGP today so essentially no change there. I could be wrong though. Those who don’t receive an invite through PGP are opting for supervisas as promoted by government however that favours the advantaged pool as well since the insurance premium is quite a sum anyways.
My $0.02.....unless you challenge the status quo, nothing will change. Good luck with your petition (and as a point of reference, I'm with armoured that the whole PGP program should be scrapped. Does nothing but cost taxpayers money).
 
  • Like
Reactions: armoured

steaky

VIP Member
Nov 11, 2008
14,241
1,614
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
My $0.02.....unless you challenge the status quo, nothing will change. Good luck with your petition (and as a point of reference, I'm with armoured that the whole PGP program should be scrapped. Does nothing but cost taxpayers money).
Parents & grandparents are taxpayers too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vpkasbek

vpkasbek

Hero Member
Nov 22, 2016
716
215
Visa Office......
CPC -Sydney; Secondary visa office: CPC-Ottawa
NOC Code......
0213
App. Filed.......
Jan 03, 2017
Doc's Request.
Generic Reminder Email: RPRF, Passport Bio, Sch A, PCC. 06.12.2017; Updated Sch A form 09.25.2017
Nomination.....
Dec 15, 2016
AOR Received.
Mar 07, 2017
IELTS Request
Sent with package
Med's Request
Dec 15, 2017 (Upfront eMedicals); Feb 12, 2018 (Request from CIC)
Med's Done....
Feb 14, 2018 (Passed)
Interview........
Not applicable; BGIP 2: Feb 27, 2018
Passport Req..
Apr 13, 2018
VISA ISSUED...
Apr 19, 2018
My $0.02.....unless you challenge the status quo, nothing will change. Good luck with your petition (and as a point of reference, I'm with armoured that the whole PGP program should be scrapped. Does nothing but cost taxpayers money).
You bet! And will push forward with hope for greater interest of many who do care . Let’s just not blatantly label parents and grand parents as some kind of baggage on taxpayers because they are after all coming on financial responsibility of their family. There are multitude scenarios around us where tax payers money is going down the drain and people arriving under economic streams yet living on gov funded programs but all focus on inviting elderly because they are not in position to economically contribute. That’s not even true though entirely that they are financially dependent but very convenient and general mindset of people opposing parents sponsorship. Anyways, it’s everyone’s personal viewpoints and have no interest in debating over this. At least, all I request is please let’s be respectful there is sentimental aspect to why someone who pursue reunification but everyone is thinking ‘what’s in it for me’.

Appreciate everyones feedback thus far and heard. There isn’t anything further to this thread.
 
Last edited:

Saggi09

Full Member
Sep 24, 2021
41
33
My two cents

The PGP system should give a chance to both new immigrants and those waiting from previous years to sponsor their parents. With some priority for people who have already been waiting for years.

One way to achieve this could be that they have two seperate pools each year. The bigger pool, lets say 75% should come from the old applicants who have unsuccesfully applied for atleast 3 years or more. The second pool should consist of the people who have applied for 2 years or less + the brand new applicants.

In this way every eligible applicant will have a shot at getting through. For old applicants the more you wait, the better chance you have at getting through. And new applicants dont have to wait for years even before they start applying.

I know this is not a perfect solution but atleast it gives something to both old and new applicants.

Just my opinion.