PR for Mother
- Thread starter adipadi
- Start date
I think the only thing you can do (besides trying NZ or one of you moving back to help your mom) is to try for a super visa and then apply for PGP. Always try the intended route first before adding to the H&C load. It makes it less effective for everyone
That is not a realistic plan for most. The mother can visit on a supervisa but needs to have a longterm plan for care in her home country. There will not be a pathway for many parents to remain in Canada and get PR.
Makes no sense because PGP hasn't been open in years. If she comes on a supervisa then can stay years. No reason for H&C which she is not eligible for.
They will close off the H&C route for parents soon...just watch.
Looks like they are like "just super visa it" without an actual plan
Out of pressure they raised the supervisa visit to 5-7 years. How IRCC chose to ignore that this would lead to people viewing this as a permanent move is mind boggling. Also doesn’t help that IRCC used to give out extensions extremely easily. Also no verification that people have paid for supervisa insurance annually and many end up with outstanding bills at Canadian hospitals. Like other temporary residents parents are on the list of groups to deal with and many are in for a big surprise. Agree that parents are likely going to be blocked from H&C. Only possible solution and punishes the genuine exceptions that should get H&C. Should have happened already.
Last edited:
When PGP is eventually opened there will be hundreds of thousands of applicants for a very small number of spots. The fact these PGP exists given the state of healthcare is a minor miracle to begin with. Hopefully there will be both income verification and some sort of priority system like years as a PR or citizen (many options) because current system with the volume of applicants doesn’t work. Canada needs to be honest and stress that parents sponsorship is not guaranteed especially within a certain time frame.
A 10 year supervisa does not mean she can visit for 10 years. Would add that many do not have the funds to pay for healthcare for preexisting conditions or if supervisa insurance is refused which would also mean visitor is no longer compliant with the terms of their supervisa.
That means the Super Visa might be the only realistic option. The next PGP will be quite different from before — more like the Australian model, where you either make a large financial contribution or end up on a 20–30 year waiting list.
If you can’t afford medical insurance, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to afford applying through a contributory program either.
Last edited:
I'm an Indian. I don't think you get what's being said here. No one here thinks you are freeloader and nothing to do with you being Indian at all. When we all came here, we made life decisions. It is quite unclear from your post that your mother is actually finding it exceptionally hard to qualify for H&C. The core issue being that you don't understand H&C and you (with innocent ignorance) asked a question that has been spammed here quite a lot. If you search the number of threads on this topic by people, you'll see what I'm talking about.
One of the topics of discussion even in core H&C threads is the fact that so many people who think they qualify for H&C (but are simply faking it) for their parents are making it hard for actual H&C applicants. Most of us immigrants have/should-have resources, plan to figure this problem out. Going to H&C should only be an optional when you think there are significant hardships. Just not having kids around isn't hardship if that makes sense.
A supervisa is a visitor visa. The mother can visit but it is visa that allows you to visit on a yearly basis IF you can secure supervisa insurance. Currently in most cases you can visit for 5 years with the potential for a 2 year extension. Many confuse this as a permanent move. If you get sick you are expected to return home once stabilized because supervisa insurance is emergency medical insurance that does not cover most preexisting conditions. Many parents are going to end up with removal orders if they attempt to remain in Canada without status. It sounds extreme but many have made no plans for care in their home country even though they have not secured permanent status for their parents in Canada. Before immigrating to Canada people must have a longterm plan for care for family members who remain in their home country. There is huge demand for limited spots for parent sponsorship. The fact that PGP exists given the state of our healthcare system is a minor miracle. Longterm taxpayers can’t secure a GP, a bed in LTC, are on wait lists for all sorts of healthcare, etc. so tough to justify how we can also afford to have PGP or allow such a long visit on a supervisa. Most in Canada have zero idea these programs exist.
I'd add: the government has set a target for reducing the number of temporary residents as a % of the total population, and it's going to be a hard target to meet.
Now, there's a longer lead time for the supervisas / long issuance validity, so it's not like they can turn the tap off tomorrow and expect it'll hit the numbers significantly by end 2027 (is that the target?).
Obviously super-visa holders are quite likely a smallish percentage of the total temp-res population. But in the course of making these adjustments, I'd expect they'll start looking carefully at many of the programs, and not just for overall numbers, but for all of the trade-off issues: impact on housing, services, health care, overall contribution to society (taxes included), subsequent claims/impact on other programs, etc. (A side note that I don't think gets enough attention: one of the big bottlenecks at IRCC is waiting for security clearances from elsewhere, and that needs to be dealt with)
I think in any comparison like this, they're going to soon discover a not-tiny population that uses a fair amount of healthcare, doesn't effectively pay taxes here, and makes a lot of H&C claims later. (I know that in other temporary resident programs and applications - all kinds - 'conversion' into refugee / H&C claims are high on the list of 'more scrutiny required).
For politicians, the main benefit of super-visa/PGP is fewer constituents complaining about their parents' limited immigration options. But if a large percentage later convert into 'complaining about not getting PR / H&C / why can't my parents stay?', and related legal issues, it starts to look like not a great trade-off.
In short: these programs are destined to be limited (even more). The big numbers are in student visas (already in process and starting to have an impact) and TFWs. That'll take some time to work through and there'll be some corrections (it's likely they'll overdo limits on both).
[I'm rather hopeful that at some point they'll realise that 'converting' some of the temporary residents to PRs has the biggest mathematical impact - esp if combined with real restrictions for new entries - and prioritize "in-Canada" programs to do that more quickly for those with 'good criteria' - working, esp if in areas that need workers. No sense trying to hunt for new workers in some area while forcing others to leave because they can't quite hit the points. I don't have the insight into these programs to say exactly how to do this.]
Think the actual volume of parents visiting on supervisas is likely higher than we may think. Should ATIP the ED use of certain hospitals and it would probably be pretty shocking how many non-OHIP, MSP, RAMQ, etc. users are accessing healthcare. Anecdotally clearly putting strain on hospitals that would already be facing strain based on local population growth. Then there is the asylum claimants pre and post IFIP. Incredibly high use of the ED partially due to lack of understanding of how the healthcare system works and viewing it as “free” since you don’t have to pay before being seen like in many countries.
Last edited:
Similar threads
