PR for Mother

[Greninja]

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.

That’s why I said the next PGP will very likely be based on financial contribution. Just look at Australia’s parent program—you’ll see what I mean.

 

[armoured]

Think the actual volume of parents visiting on supervisas is likely higher than we may think.

Now there you go again, bringing in points that support my argument. )

 

[armoured]

That’s why I said the next PGP will very likely be based on financial contribution. Just look at Australia’s parent program—you’ll see what I mean.

I've looked at it, briefly. As far as I can tell, they've ended up with a system where they charge 'extra' - but not enough to cover actual anticipated (actuarial) expenses, while remaining too low to significantly restrain demand.

So they end up with a system where they charge 'extra' but still end up with long (five year plus?) waiting lists, and a 'free' list with an extra-long waiting list.

Now this is from a vague memory from some articles, so if wrong, mea culpa.

I see the 'permanent' one for aged parents is ~$50k - of which about $45k for the 'contributory' one that gets you on the quicker list? I'm not clear. My guess is that for it to offset increased costs, it would have to be more like $200k, and be VERY unpopular with the public at that rate.

On the other hand: it may be instructive for Canadians / Canadian applicants to check out the Australian fees. They're quite a bit higher than here. I see a fair amount of complaints about IRCC fees - looks to me like IRCC isn't overcharging, far from it.

https://www.longtonmigration.com.au/blog/parents-visa-australia-cost/

 

[Greninja]

I've looked at it, briefly. As far as I can tell, they've ended up with a system where they charge 'extra' - but not enough to cover actual anticipated (actuarial) expenses, while remaining too low to significantly restrain demand.

So they end up with a system where they charge 'extra' but still end up with long (five year plus?) waiting lists, and a 'free' list with an extra-long waiting list.

Now this is from a vague memory from some articles, so if wrong, mea culpa.

I see the 'permanent' one for aged parents is ~$50k - of which about $45k for the 'contributory' one that gets you on the quicker list? I'm not clear. My guess is that for it to offset increased costs, it would have to be more like $200k, and be VERY unpopular with the public at that rate.

On the other hand: it may be instructive for Canadians / Canadian applicants to check out the Australian fees. They're quite a bit higher than here. I see a fair amount of complaints about IRCC fees - looks to me like IRCC isn't overcharging, far from it.

https://www.longtonmigration.com.au/blog/parents-visa-australia-cost/

I’m not suggesting that IRCC should replicate the Australian parent visa program exactly, but we could have taken valuable lessons from it.

Furthermore, IRCC should implement limits on the number of immigrants accepted from individual countries. They should have done this 5 years ago.

 

[canuck78]

Now there you go again, bringing in points that support my argument. )

Agree that this is a group that gets very little attention in terms of temporary residents. The majority of Canadians are unaware that supervisa or even PGP exist. International students and temporary workers get most of the attention from the media, politicians and IRCC. Would be shocked if IRCC knows how many parents are currently visiting Canada and how long they have been visiting. The issue of parent sponsorship and supervisas are so politically toxic nobody wants to discuss what is feasible. The fact that PGP quota was cut by Marc Miller would have received huge pushback but Trudeau gvt had increased quotas dramatically compared to Harper gvt.

 

[canuck78]

I’m not suggesting that IRCC should replicate the Australian parent visa program exactly, but we could have taken valuable lessons from it.

Furthermore, IRCC should implement limits on the number of immigrants accepted from individual countries. They should have done this 5 years ago.

There have been discussions about higher income requirements in the past which got huge pushback.

 

[armoured]

I’m not suggesting that IRCC should replicate the Australian parent visa program exactly, but we could have taken valuable lessons from it.

I have to echo @canuck78's comments here: my own experience / understanding is that one weird specificity of Canadian politics is that in some areas, the idea that some things from government should be decided based on money is political kryptonite.

The other side of that coin is that Canadians are incredibly cheap about government spending, and absolutely unrealistically so.

Unrealistic in both directions, really.