Thats what I mean, DEAR IRCC, when it comes to translating documents parents ARE family members but when it comes to immigrating here they ARE NOT family members??? Also Ukrainian Canadian and PR Holder's parents ARE Family members but my parents ARE not family members??? REALLY?? Where's justice? Equality under the LAW???? Why as a Canadian citizen my parents are NOT considered family, but Ukrainian Canadian citizen's parents are considered as family????
PGP - New Interest to Sponsor Form - Reopen??
- Thread starter kashifaziz
- Start date
Ukraine is being attacked by Russia. They are at war and Canadian government offers help.
There is additional support that's being offered to Ukraine.
Canada announces additional support for Ukraine | Prime Minister of Canada (pm.gc.ca)
So at the end of the story parents are family members right? Or it's by selection by govt??
Last edited:
I have a feeling that after this draw, they will have another one in November - December 2024 followed by the last and final in April/May 2025. This will clear the 2020 pool. Post elections in 2025 the new govt will come out with a new policy on Immigration.
If Liberals win with our without support, they will continue their existing immigration plans with some changes. If conservatives win, they cannot afford to scrap this very popular and high in demand PGP policy but might make some changes.
One thing is for sure that which ever govt comes, they will have to continue the PGP program but more important is to pre screen applicants and charge a fees for intial application. Also the lottery system should be scrapped and first come first basis program be introduces. Basis the current number of eligible applicants in the pool and annual quota, people will know the time it would take for their application to be processed.
This kind of transparency will also be helpful for new immigrants as they will know approx. time it might take for them to sponsor their parents.
If Liberals win with our without support, they will continue their existing immigration plans with some changes. If conservatives win, they cannot afford to scrap this very popular and high in demand PGP policy but might make some changes.
One thing is for sure that which ever govt comes, they will have to continue the PGP program but more important is to pre screen applicants and charge a fees for intial application. Also the lottery system should be scrapped and first come first basis program be introduces. Basis the current number of eligible applicants in the pool and annual quota, people will know the time it would take for their application to be processed.
This kind of transparency will also be helpful for new immigrants as they will know approx. time it might take for them to sponsor their parents.
They tried the first come first serve system before and that resulted in people paying homeless and organized groups to go camp and line-up for days and weeks. That prevented people who are honest and really in need for these programs to reunite with their families. Please oh please don't go back to the first come first serve days.
You are right, I remember when they had this system and people were standing in a que for the whole night to submit paper applications. That was bad.
When I said first come first basis I didn't mean that, my bad.
I meant prequalify first on a payment basis and once you qualify they send you a confirmation and basis that you get a wait list number (part of the pool). Now whenever they have a quota they invite from this pool basis the priority number. They can invite on a monthly basis, quarterly or yearly basis.
Pre-qualification on a payment will certainly deter who do not qualify, will have genuine eligible a
applicants.
This is just one suggestion and I am sure there will be many more suggestion form others.
Agree on this. And as many folks mentioned, drain the 2020 pool before open to later applicants, in another word, complete applicants potentially qualified earlier would be fairer. Its larger principle is first come first basis at batch scale.
We all understand there will be some angry potential applicants feel left behind and somehow unfair to them. The rule of thumb is that there is no way government can make every citizen happy.
The real unfair case under current system is that it's abused by many applicants who clearly understood they didn't qualify but still take up a spot in the pool anyway, because there is no cost no penalty to them. They are betting they might be lucky to sneak through, or there is a chance they can qualify the income requirements in later draws.
The non-refundable initial fee is what I can think of to mitigate that loophole. I'll deem it as a deposit that going to pay down the application/landing fee. It must be refunded if government terminated the program. Otherwise it'll be non-refundable if applicant later dis-qualified for any reason (income, residency, etc) or changed their needs (passed away, don't want to come).
First come first serve is NOT sustainable for a program that drastically limits the number of places compared to potential applicants. We've seen it before: years-long waiting lists which eventually become, essentially, infinite.
It confers an advantage to those that apply shortly after a new program is announced or on announcement, and ultimately ends up with a LONG queue of people who will never be admitted (and the extended members agonizing that their parents will only be approved when old and decrepit - or never). Once the wait settles to clearly be five years or more, the pressure will mount, and it'll have to be cancelled again - everyone in the queue will simply scream that the quotas are too small, even if they were announced in advance. It's inevitable.
Not going to happen. Unless everyone's forgotten how these things always work out. Which also happens.
I don't think we disagree with each other, just talking about two different things.
My bad if I didn't communicate clearly what I mean by first come first serve, I'm just talking about the general principle for a civilized/fairer system that people not easily skip the line. We all understand what's the drawback to have people stand in a line overnight or the current lottery system, what I'm saying is with all those drawbacks in mind, the general handling principle should still hold by "first come first serve", no matter what the actual implementation would be, and with its own drawbacks.
Then a different thing you brought up, other than above handling principle is, another issue we all understand, huge gap between demand and quota. I can tell confidently, as long as that huge gap between supply and demand exist, any system would be NOT sustainable, there is just no smart design can fix that fundamental gap. The reason I didn't brought that issue up, is that in a democratic country, there is no better answer about what a reasonable gap between demand and quota should be. I would personally like to vote for a dramatic raise in the income cutoff to filter out my potentitial competitors, but how many other taxpayers would vote for my preference? Eventually, probably a majority opinion is to make PGP eligible for more, or even terminate the program if we including the entire taxpayers body.
I have no idea what this 'general handling principle' means in the context of what kind of program there should be. That seemed to be what you were proposing.
But ok, we're on same page a general and actual first come first served won't work. Probably not worth exploring the general principle - ok, no line jumping.
Yep, that's the fundamental issue. Everyone will have their own critiques.
I see a lot of complaints, for example, about the 'apply just in case' (eg if not sure / not meeting income requirements in hopes it'll work out). I don't see that as much of an issue, actually. Government has a pretty good idea that some percentage of those that express interest won't go to completion (some are no longer interested, some have some documentation or other issues, some sponsors didn't remain in Canada, and yes, some arent' actually eligible), and I'd bet they estimate those numbers fairly accurately. In other words, those dropping out don't actually much impact anything at all - it was planned in advance. It seems to drive some here mad that somebody not eligible 'took' their hypothetical spot, but net-net, really no impact: they 'drew' 5000 names expecting half to drop out or not even respond. If they were much stricter with up-front fees or whatever, they'd just be drawing 3000 names expecting a lower portion to drop out. Not worth the effort.
Anyway, you've well understood the point. Any change that's fully money-based will be criticized, any change that ignores money has to have some other selection method (like a lottery).
As above, my suggestion would be a combination of money and more reliance on supervisas / residency requirements. A big waste in many cases where PRs want to get their parents here as PRs and ... seems many of the parents don't really want to live here permanently, they want to visit their grandkids for longer periods of time.
I should duck out of this dispute though - not a situation that concerns me except as a citizen. Our senior family members abroad - well, doesn't apply to them, let's leave it at that.
Yeah overall I'm saying that I don't suggest any exact implementation about handling procedure, and I believe any exact impl can have some haters and lovers. But I do believe any exact impl can have room to improve just like introducing some non-refundable fee to enter the pool for current impl. However, I do stand firm on that, no matter what exact impl would be, it should prioritize individual applicant or batch of applicants who potentially qualified or applied earlier, I believe order is important to make the system generally fair for most applicants.