Tableland

The Australian one, while fundamentally the same, places different emphases in different areas. For a start, the Canadian points system is more favourable to those with more education, and also gives maximum points to people up to 49, which is why so many more people going to Canada on these forums are pushing 50. Australia cuts points from, IIRC, 30 downwards, and after 45 you don't get in on skilled visas. That might need checking, but that's the basic size of it. On the age thing I support Canada's approach because a lot of people over 45 still have an enormous amount to give to society and are also very experienced. Australia rejecting these people is short-sighted, IMO.

Crucially, the Australian system is better at getting people to regional low-growth areas, whereas Canada requires a job offer first to go through the PNP, which is their equivalent. Australia places a lot of emphasis on work experience as well, and much less on level of education. And so on. Either way, the Aussie system works much more efficiently, for whatever reason, so it is good to see the Canadian Govt. adapting.

sinope

Good synopsis of the system, thanks. I think it takes 18 months to get to Australia as a skilled worker as opposed to the 5 years plus currently quoted by CIC?

JET747

This is the same minister who gave this message in the Forum at the weekend. He passed by me and I should have had stopped him and asked him some questions as he seemed to be very approachable. By this time we had got fed up and were leaving.

Like others here, I don't think that they have really adjusted the process enough to get the workers they really require. I think that the new legislation will be more selective and focus on the trades and skills that they require rather than anyone who wants to move there under the old point system.??

Interesting.

JET

Tableland

Thanks, but like I said, I might be wrong; it's been over a year since I really looked into all this. The times you quote are correct, I believe. In general it is around 18 months or less for Australian skilled worker and more like 5 years for Canadian skilled worker. But the regional visas I referred to above are much quicker and people can get processed in 6 months. They are provisional visas, but can be, and in fact must be, upgraded to PR after two years of residency. The good thing about this is they get you into the country and you can work and wait for PR there rather than in the UK. Also, you do not need a job offer to get one, unlike the PNP. These fundamental distinctions make an important difference, I believe.

The Australian system is much more user-friendly as well. when I looked into Canada, some years ago now, I just couldn't get any information out of them at all, which I believe from these forums is quite a common complaint, but the Australians were very easy to get hold of and helpful throughout.

I don't know for sure, but for a long time in the 1990s Canada was above Australia in the UN HDI, and perhaps their popularity allowed them to get a bit complacent about immigrants. Today, and for the past few years, Australia is above them and maybe this has made them realise they must work harder to attract the right sort of skilled immigrant to replace all those going to the US every year.

sinope

And of course, the EU has opened up many more possibilties for Brits looking to move away. Lots are moving to the old Eastern bloc countries to take advantage of incredibly cheap housing/cost of living.

Tableland

Exactly, and native English speakers are in such demand. Just imagine if you could apply direct to any province in Canada and get issued with a three year visa, no job required, and then that visa was converted to PR after the time period providing you had worked in the province and paid tax there. Imagine how many British people would apply to go to Canada. That is the kind of thing Ottawa needs to be thinking about. However, some of the material I have read leads me to believe they favour a more employment-centric approach more like the US, which is pretty much the opposite.

Only time will tell.

sinope

The employment-centric bias would be less of a problem if Canadian employers were more open to employing Brits, of course.

Rich_007

They're deterred, obviously, by the thought of having to provide tea as well as coffee for employees. It's a damned inconvenience for The Man.

Seriously though, it kinda filters out the employer garbage. Would you really want to work for a discriminating, redneck employer ?

But I guess they do have good reason...who wants whining misplaced Brits in the workplace ? Only a minority really "get it" - the rest want to replicate "home" and constantly compare "there" with "here". Irritating self-centered sorts who moved for an easy life and want to "take take take" without giving back.

R.

Iain Mc

Upon what do you base that Rich, anecdotal evidence from your corner of the Okanagan? From those Brits I've met over here I would say 'most' get it; the minority who don't are largely on a plane home within a couple of years anyway (admittedly, equally anecdotal assumptions ).

Happy Canada day, I love it here!

NoreenC

Yes, the Daily Mail does a lot of UK bashing, but did anybody see the article inside the paper? The writer has obviously been to Canada on more than one occasion (I presume for work reasons) and says that one visit to Canada is one too many! He gives various reasons for this and finishes by saying that Canada is not a good reason to leave Blighty. Siberia would be better! It's not quite what I want to read when we are coming to Nova Scotia for a recce in September :-) !

sinope

Yes, the tea versus coffee thing hadn't really occured to me. And is it milk or cream, or is that just the US?

sinope

Have you got a link to the article - I can't quite bring myself to visit the DM website in case my brain starts to bleed...

Judy in Calgary

I read the article. I believe there is some truth to it. However, it's not a very nuanced article, and some of it sounds as if it's even written tongue in cheek. In any case, how can a single article capture a country, any country?

My husband has been to Canada's far north (Norman Wells, Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk). He's also been to Siberia. He found all of those places interesting to visit, but wouldn't want to live in any of them. And Siberia is a large place. The part of it through which he drove, which took him eight hours to traverse, is only a small slice of it in the larger scheme of things.

Whether or not you'll like Canada depends on whether or not you find a job that you like and how well Canada fulfills what you want from it.

I have often criticized the part of Canada that I know well, and have even done so on this forum today. But I sure as heck wouldn't base my decision on whether or not to move to Canada on what that joker wrote in the Daily Mail.
x

bodgerx

Yeah I read that. They kind of stuck that in at the end to balance it out. They probably chose the ultimate Canada-hater. References to beavers eating there own privates because life is so bad in Canada...nice.

Not exactly a balanced set of accounts to say the least.

Rich_007

I dare you to ask for milk in your coffee...



R.