Oh, Canada!

A great misconception for many would-be immigrants, who are seeking to move to Canada, is that it should be possible to do so in a relatively short amount of time, say 3 - 4 months.
 

Every so often, I encounter someone who just doesn’t believe that it takes much longer than that. ‘What’s the big deal?’ they exclaim with disbelief. ‘You just fill out the forms, send them off and you get your answer!’

I inform them that to begin with, starting from their own end, it usually takes a fair amount of time to gather all the requested documentation and to then properly and painstakingly complete the application forms. (Remember: measure twice, cut once?) After being mailed, patience is the rule, as we uncomplainingly endure while the immigration bureaucracy meticulously surveys the application and carries out its investigations. “What takes so long?” Good question, but it does.

What made me think of this recently, was a NY Times article, published on 02 November ’12, (“At a Loss? There’s Always Canada”) forwarded to me by an American friend. The article highlights and discusses the reactions of some Americans (particularly the left-leaning ones) to the possible outcome of the US election. Each political side possesses its cronies, with some proudly boasting that if [you put in the candidate’s name] wins the election, they will pick themselves up and move on up to Canada.

Ah, but of course! It makes such perfect sense! Just move to Canada. Come on up! Not a problem at all. Good ol’ Canada. Reliable, dependable, rugged. A refuge, no less!  Canada — the pure glistening, summer cottage and resort area, a place to relocate to when things don’t look and feel so fuzzy good at home. We — the morning-room to their kitchen, the cozy spot to saunter over to in bathrobe and slippers, while reading the morning news and nursing a piping hot cuppa joe. You don’t fancy the US (this minute)? Fret not — just park yourselves in welcoming, accepting, adoring Canada. We will be waiting for you with flowers at the borders.

NOT!

First of all, before anything, (as the article also makes a point of mentioning) Canada, ironically, has a somewhat right-wing political agenda of its own as of now, albeit our distinct Canadian-style conservatism. US left-wingers seeking to escape from Republican Romney-politics, would be sorely disappointed if they were expecting in Canada a free-thinking and ‘liberal’ utopian society.

I should also draw attention to another very serious irritant and sore point for many left-wing ideologues, by taking this opportunity to trumpet quite loudly our Prime Minister Mr Stephen Harper and his government’s principled, committed, unflinching and unwavering support for Israel, never heretofore witnessed by the Canadian public and oft-times much to the chagrin of the majority of the international community. 

But frankly, it’s really the immigration component that I’m thinking of here. Dear American cousins of the above-mentioned article, how exactly do you suppose you can ‘come to Canada’?! On which legal principles do you believe that you would be given entry to Canada to study or work? Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but it just ain’t that easy! We love you as our neighbours and friends — we really, really do, but when it comes to immigration, you stand in line mostly like everybody else!

Forgive me, but you just don’t get to ‘come over’ to Canada at your whim.

Indeed, Canada is a phenomenal country — political stability; healthy economy; cultured; broad and generous social-care system; and great weather (okay, four out of five isn’t too bad!). Our country receives an incredible amount of immigration applications each year from persons wishing to migrate here and share in our precious resources.

And, precisely because of this never-ending flood of applications, the Canadian immigration system had, of recent, become seriously inflated and backlogged with immigration applications. However, new changes to the Canadian immigration system have attempted to relieve this condition, and they have also tightened the rules and narrowed the passage-way for immigration-candidates wanting to achieve Canadian permanent residence.

Backlogs in immigration file-processing is not a new issue and has been a problem in the past as well. However, under the old immigration system prior to recent changes (discussed below), the build-up of unprocessed applications had reached an unmanageable and unfathomable 640,000

The reason for the incredible growth of this backlog monster is that while international Canadian visa offices had quotas for the amount of permanent resident visas which they could issue, there was no such similar limit on the amount of applications that they could receive. As a result, the amount of submitted applications outstripped the amount of available visas. Demand had simply overburdened the supply.

Seeing this imbalance, feeling the need to ease the incredible backlog which had resulted, and also to address the issue of attracting and selecting better candidates to become permanent residents, the Canadian government enacted significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in February of 2008.

Under these amendments, the Minister of Immigration could make changes to the Federal Skilled Worker program (the most conventional and routine way to enter Canada, other than through Quebec), by limiting the amount of applications which it would consider for processing, and slapping on new immigration requirements and categories which applicants would have to fit into before consideration by the government. It was determined that these changes would be applicable only to files submitted on or after 28 February 2008.

Indeed, the Minister did eventually issue ‘instructions’, effectively narrowing the funnel of the intake of applicants to the Federal Skilled Worker program. It really was quite a change from the previous system!

However…the unexpected by-product of all this was that the newer files were being processed before the older files  (i.e. those submitted before 28 February 2008), and the older files continued to stack up in the back rooms. In 2011, only 34% of permanent residence visas were issued from the pre-2008 era; the rest remained untouched and untreated by immigration officials.

Back to the drawing-board again, and still seeking to eliminate the burdensome build-up of files, a new law was introduced on 30 March 2012. It effectively eliminated any applications which had been submitted prior to 28 February ’08, and which had not yet received a positive response by 29 March 2012. This resulted in a return of a whopping 280,000 immigration applications (along with their processing fees worth $130 million), amounting to about 95% of all the pre-2008 applications! This clearing-out process was expected to continue until about 2017.

Needless to say, there was a public outcry, both at home and abroad, in reaction to this momentous decision by the government. People who had pinned their hopes of a better future on Canada were saddened and befuddled to be so turned away, years after they had applied. And of course…that anger and resentment has turned into the undertaking of legal action against the federal government.

In a case to be presented before the Federal Court, the first issue for determination will be whether all rejected immigration applicants could be included in a class-action lawsuit. If they could, then only one case would have to be tried and decided, with the result applicable to all affected participants.

The second matter to be adjudicated rests on the merits of the case, and subsequently the legality or illegality of the new law and backlog-clearance. The case is expected to start in November 2012.

More recently, on 02 November last, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Mr Jason Kenney, announced that only(!) 100,000 files remain in the system, (from a high of 640,000) and that he expects these to be cleared by the end of 2013. He further stated that by the end of next year, immigration files will be able to be processed within a year as opposed to the eight-year delay which had become the standard.

Not to be the odd man out, Quebec has also toughened up its own immigration process. As you may be aware, even though the domain of Canadian immigration is legally under federal jurisdiction, by agreement, Quebec has been given the right to select its own immigrants (while applicants’ final acceptance still remains in federal hands).

By a Quebec government decision, published in the Gazette officielle du Québec on 29 June, 2012, the Ministère de l’Immigration et des Communautés culturelles has also placed limits on the intake of applications corresponding to designated immigration classes. It is now necessary to meet new criteria established by these recently enacted rules.

Thus, it is clearly evident that whether immigrating through Quebec or the rest of Canada — from any country of origin — the process is hardly a walk in the park. Americans-from-the-article, beware!

Notwithstanding all of the above, and to be fair and perhaps present a more balanced picture, I think that it might be possible to argue that US citizens still do have a bit of an advantage in coming to Canada.

On a very elementary and common level, Canadians and Americans enjoy mutual, relaxed and restriction-free ‘visitation rights’ to each other’s countries: a) there are no visitor-visa requirements from either country imposed on their respective citizens, when travelling from one country to the other; and b) unless someone’s got a fishy story or they’re acting like they’ve got something to hide, a visitor to either country will not normally be prevented from entering. Generally speaking, it is only when an immigration officer suspects that the ‘visitor’ may actually be entering to work or study without authorization (or other matters at play), that he/she may be refused entry.

As for employment opportunities, if Canadians want to work in the US or vice-versa, there is this handy law known as NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is actually quite a vast law; however, as it pertains to our discussion, let it be said that it greatly facilitates the exchange of professional workers between the two countries. It alleviates much of the standard paperwork, and when possible, really provides a great opportunity for certain classes of workers to find employment in each other’s countries.

And even with the new immigration rules in place for those seeking Canadian permanent residence, US nationals might also be favoured.

For one, Canadians and Americans share cultural, political and societal norms. Moving from one country to the other would not necessarily entail an upheaval in one’s life. Generally speaking, Americans are easily transportable from their society to ours, as we are to theirs.

A common complaint heard from recent or prospective immigrants to Canada when searching for a job opportunity, is that prospective employers want them to have ‘Canadian experience’. Of course, this is not such a comical catch-22: the immigrant can’t have Canadian experience if no one is willing to hire him, and then conversely, no one is willing to hire him because he has no ‘Canadian experience’.

US nationals would face no such discrimination and would be more readily able to garner Canadian employment opportunities. Both Canada and US workers have their respective particular work habits and traits, and each country’s employees could wisely learn from each other. Canadian employers would welcome US workers’ know-how and forward-thinking attitudes. No issue of lack of ‘Canadian experience’ with this segment of immigrants.

This is buttressed by the fact that schooling; teaching and educational methods; and certificates, diplomas and degrees of higher education of both Canada and the US are usually accepted at face value by either country. Whereas foreign educational credentials need to be assessed for their Canadian equivalency in any immigration application, this is usually not the case with degrees issued in the US.

Finally, the new legislation coming into effect in January 2013 will place greater emphasis on English language skills, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada has recognized is “a key factor in the success of new residents in Canada.” As (most) Americans share English with us as their mother tongue, they could reasonably expect to improve their chances for immigration based on this fact alone.

So as not to alarm some readers, none of the above has anything to do with spousal sponsorships! That is its own kettle of fish and, although it has also recently undergone significant changes, is beyond the purview of this article.

In summation, behold you have witnessed the under-belly of the immigration process, fraught with personal, time and legal challenges! Migration from one country to another, though greatly valued by some, is truly not for the faint-of-heart. Immigrants to this country have often expended great efforts on their immigration projects.

So, to those Americans who are unhappy with the election results: you’re always welcome to come here, but…it just ain’t as easy as you think!

Lawyer-up...or not?

I hope that you all have had a nice and peaceful summer.

Before we get to the main course of this article, I wish to preface with the following disclaimer.

When a law student is ‘called to the Bar’ to become a Bar-accredited lawyer, he/she initiates his/her career by committing, in a ‘swearing-in’ or ‘affirmation’ ceremony, to never disclose or divulge any information transmitted to him/her by a client. Predictably, there are certain (extraordinary) exceptions to this rule, such as when a lawyer is bound by statute to release particular information under specific, extreme circumstances. And of course, this rule has generated much case-law about what is and isn’t included in this blanket coverage. Still, suffice it to say, that as a rule, whatever is revealed and shared in a lawyer’s office always remains in the lawyer’s office. Under pain of severe penalty, no gossiping about clients is tolerated by the Barreau du Québec!

In my own practice, this has been so much the case, that when friends or acquaintances, of both my wife and I, have consulted me on legal matters, even regarding those which would eventually become public and open to all, I have nonetheless never, ever shared any of these details (both before and after) with my wife and/or anyone else. So much so, that some of these persons have later quizzed my wife, ‘You mean to tell me that your husband never told you that I/we…?? It wouldn’t have bothered me!’ Well it’s the client’s  right to say and feel so, but that doesn’t release any lawyer from his/her obligation. Confidentiality and privacy are the assurances which every lawyer must deliver, and quite frankly, anything less would be disastrous for business! 

I tell you all this only to state that I will now be sharing a story with you about a case in which I was recently involved. Before preparing this article, I consulted with the main characters of the following events, to seek their approval in letting everybody in on their tale.  Furthermore, they reviewed this article before it was submitted to this newspaper. I have their absolute permission to go public with the following story.

Below is an account of a woman who received a moving-violations  ticket for allegedly talking on a cellphone while driving her vehicle. Indeed, an occurrence that could happen to anybody (hopefully not). From the description of events I believe that there are significant lessons to be learned from it.

On a hot, breezy Sunday afternoon in May 2010, more than two years ago, a woman whom we shall call Ms C, was driving her mini-van home, along with   her children.

She stopped at the stop sign of the northeast corner of Avenue A and  Avenue B. Montreal Police Constable L was waiting in her police vehicle on the southeast corner of the same two streets. As Ms C proceeded to cross Avenue A, Officer L put her cruiser’s lights on and signalled for Ms C to pull over.

Not seeing her flashing lights, Ms C proceeded to her home’s driveway, which is about a 3-second drive from the above-mentioned stop sign. When she exited the car, she was surprised to see the officer and asked her if there was any problem.

Ms C’s second statement to the officer was that she had been obeying the previous block’s posted ‘school zone’ 30-kilometer-per-hour speed limit. Indeed, the officer agreed that there was no issue with that. Instead, she accused Ms C of having used a cellphone while driving.

Ms C was stunned! She protested that she had done no such thing, that she didn’t even have a cellphone with her, and that her cellphone was actually inside her home with a dead, non-functional battery! (Tell me about it, who hasn’t been there?!) The police officer’s response was that Ms C had allowed the phone to drop to the floor of the van when she saw the former coming up behind her.

Ms C’s husband, who was home at the time and heard the commotion in the front of the house, came outside and attempted to reason with the constable. To discount the allegation that Ms C had dropped the cellphone upon seeing the flashing lights, he invited the officer to search the van, to find and retrieve the phone which had allegedly been so hastily disposed of.

To the uninitiated, big deal, so the husband offered that the van be searched! NOT! There is an incredible amount of law regarding searches and they are normally permitted only with a warrant and/or under certain rigid conditions. Cases lost or won have often hinged on improper and/or invalid searches.

Ms C’s husband believed his wife and had confidence in her innocence. He knew foremost that she cared about her children and that she would never, ever endanger them by chatting on a cellphone while driving, with them  in tow. Furthermore, he trusted that when she declared that she was not speaking on a cellphone, she was in fact, not speaking on a cellphone.

He was also fully aware that by welcoming the police officer into the van, he was waiving his legal rights against an illegal search. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”  This section ensures that everybody has a right to privacy, and the state has no right to intrude on that privilege, unless explicitly granted the permission through various means. This rule is so strong, that Section 24(2) of the same Charter states that any property found or seized in violation of Section 8, could be excluded as evidence at a trial.

Thus, an actual invitation to ‘go-ahead-take-a-look-around’ is no small potatoes! Ms C’s husband knew it and the police officer had to have known it. Dare I say that this situation could count high on every police officer’s wish-list or day-dream, i.e. to go snooping around for evidence on someone’s private property, without having to be concerned about its legality?! Could this be the sweet dream that every police officer dreams of?? Officer L was being handed a carte-blanche to investigate the vehicle to recover the alleged incriminating evidence, an opportunity to confirm her allegations and clinch the case.

However…the officer refused to do so.

Then Ms C’s husband offered to showcase to the officer where the cellphone was actually resting — inside their house, positioned on a shelf in their kitchen, as dead as, and frankly, less useful than a block of wood. Again, the officer declined this invitation.

Finally, Ms C’s husband offered to dial the cellphone number with their family’s cordless landline phone, to catch any kind of ringing which would have turned-up in the van, but this proposal was also rejected by the police officer.

By this time, Ms C’s children were all anxious, upset, and also pleading that their mother had not been conversing on any phone. Tensions were running high and there was a concerted effort to stay calm and rational. Simply put, the officer just refused to listen to any attempts which would have substantiated that Ms C was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Officer L went back to her car (she didn’t even have a roll of paper to print the ticket and made everybody wait until another police cruiser came to deliver it to her) and then returned with the printed ticket. On it, Ms C was accused of and charged with “having operated a road vehicle while making use of a hand held device which is equipped with a telephone function”, an offence and in contravention of the Highway Safety Code, s. 439.1.

Ms C knew that she was innocent and turned to me for advice and direction. Yes, she was concerned about the dollar amount of the fine for this alleged infraction, however, she was ultimately more worried about how the penalty points could possibly impact her overall driving record and ensuing car-insurance premiums.

Thus, at her behest, I drafted a plea of ‘not guilty’ for her. Basically, her plea came to three issues:

1) She declared that she was very conscientious about driving safety, particularly when children were involved. More so as a parent, she would never engage in any activity which could endanger the lives of others and herself.  She would certainly never natter on a cellphone while driving, as she believes that this is dangerous and irresponsible behaviour, as well as against the law.

2) The cell phone in question was not present with her at the time of the alleged infraction, but was resting peacefully inside her home.  As proof that she had not been using the cellphone as claimed by the officer, I was able to obtain an extract of her cellphone bill covering that time frame. The phone’s call history, displaying the activity of incoming and outgoing calls, showed that the cellphone had not been used for several days preceding and after the date listed on the ticket, and certainly not on the actual date of the alleged violation.

3) Finally, even if she had been holding a cellphone, it would have been practically impossible for her to conceal it from the officer, as had been claimed. When Ms C got out of the car, if there would have indeed been a phone there, the officer would have noticed it on the floor or on her person. Alternatively, the officer could have accepted the husband’s offer to dial the number and Ms C would have been trapped. Ultimately, she did not see the phone, of course, because there was no phone.

In the end, Ms C’s ‘not-guilty’ plea was not accepted. The matter would have to be referred to a judge for judgement.

Soon, many demand letters for payment of the fine arrived for Ms C, from the administration offices of the city of Montreal. I was handed all of these, and only after reading the fine print (thank-you Bill 101 [the Quebec law requiring that any English on public signs be much smaller than the French] for the conditioning!), was I informed that payment was required only if the party did not intend on going to court to fight the ticket; for contesters, the payment was not necessary at this point. However, receiving these letters proved intimidating for Ms C and only after reading the fine print, was she put at ease.

Finally, almost two full years later, a notice of the date of the hearing appeared to Ms C, set for a spring Friday afternoon at 3 PM! Normally not a bad time for anyone else, but impossible for a Jewish Saturday-Sabbath observer!

Again, Ms C turned to me and asked me to draft a request for a postponement of the date, with a suggestion of some other, more suitable times. This is what I wrote for her:

I am an Orthodox Jewish woman. As part of my religious observances, I celebrate my Sabbath from Friday dusk till Saturday night. During that time, I am not permitted to participate in any non-religious matters nor am I able to travel in any kind of vehicle.

The hearing for my case is currently set for Friday afternoon at 15h00. The Sabbath begins on Friday at 17h36.

Every single Friday, beginning from the morning and continuing into the afternoon, I am always at home preparing for the Sabbath, ensuring that all of our Sabbath needs are completed before the dusk deadline. It is therefore simply impossible for me to be involved in any other matters during that time.

Furthermore, I am concerned that because of possible delays at the courthouse, there could be a real possibility that I would not even be able to have my hearing before the Sabbath begins. I certainly could not and would not proceed (nor continue) after the commencement of the Sabbath.

Finally, even should the trial finish before the Sabbath comes in, I fear that I would not have enough time to travel and reach my home destination before the commencement of the Sabbath.

It is for these reasons that I respectfully request a re-scheduling of my trial date.

I also supplied some more suitable dates and thankfully, her hearing was assigned to a more fitting date.

Finally, the issue of the language of the hearing had to be addressed.  As an anglophone, Ms C wanted to be sure that the hearing would proceed in English and again, she entrusted me with this task.

Normally, both English and French may be used in the courts of Québec. This right is guaranteed in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. La charte de la langue française, better known as Bill 101 attempted to change this, to make French the only language of the courts. However, this was challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada and section 133 mentioned above was upheld, while those provisions of Bill 101 restricting the usage of English in courts were struck down.

Notwithstanding, I have heard of a case where the defendant was an anglophone and the hearing was starting — all in French. She protested, saying that she wanted to proceed in English instead. According to her account, the judge told her that she should have requested an English translator if she did not understand French and that the trial would nonetheless proceed in French.

Obviously, I wanted to avoid such a scenario. Consequently I ensured that at the least, a French-English translator would be present at Ms C’s audition.

Finally, the date of the trial loomed very near. I carefully reviewed the evidence which Ms C would present to the court, namely the map of where the whole transaction took place and copies of the cellphone bill. Just for certainty, she also had a fax-transmission-receipt for the translator request. Her husband was also prepared to testify, if necessary.

We arrived at the courthouse on that fateful day and I turned to my wife — the defendant, Ms C — and wished her the best of luck! She went into the hearing room while I waited outside. She presented her evidence and lo and behold, she was acquitted! My testimony would not be necessary. So ended our two-year saga (and may I add — our big headache)!

Well, there are many things I would like to say about our story, but I will state one:

No doubt there are some of you out there rolling your eyes and smirking, “Heh, smarty, her husband is a lawyer so of course she bothered with this all!”

Well, not really. This whole mess was a pain for me too, one that I wish we could have avoided. Still, I think that it is important to remember that when it comes to legal (and really, most everyday) issues, it is necessary to know when to pick your battles and when not.

Business-people will tell you, matter-of-factly, that bad debts and losses are part-and-parcel of conducting a business. It’s not a secret, it’s a reality. You have a business? Then you’ll also have lost monies. Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hurt each time, but it just happens and you have to get over it and move on.

Same with being a car owner. Tickets, along with maintenance and other matters, have to be factored-in as part of the cost of owning a vehicle. Of course, nobody wants or invites these seemingly avoidable costs. But as the earth spins, so too will they occur. Sometimes because of forgetfulness; sometimes because of legitimate reasons and sometimes because of circumstances beyond our control. Anybody who gets (overly) aggravated when gifted with a ticket under their wiper or receiving it via personal hand-delivery is not being realistic about car-ownership costs. It’s okay — be upset for a minute or two, and then just give it up. And yes, I am talking from personal experience!

On many occasions, I have been asked about how to handle certain driving-related tickets. Notwithstanding what I have expressed in the previous paragraph, I am not suggesting that we always have to just roll-over and allow ourselves to be punished and fined for no good reason! Certainly, in exceptional situations, if you feel strongly that you were wronged for no valid cause AND (and this is a big ‘and’) you are prepared and willing to spend the time, money, effort and aggravation to prove it — with absolutely no guarantee or assurance whatsoever of success — then yes, it would be wholly acceptable that the ‘principle’ of the matter should be taken into account in the decision-making of whether or not to contest a ticket  and/or whether to have legal representation.

And at other times I have replied: enlisting the quotients above and  weighing all of the factors, putting each on a scale of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ and aiming for a stark, honest and realistic evaluation, would it still be worthwhile, tenable and feasible to contest the ticket? Most times it really is not. And once again, I speak from personal experience!

However, when there could be (amongst others) a concern for a tarnished driving record, (a significant) ‘points’ penalty and/or a possibility of future, hefty car-insurance premiums, the legal landscape may take on a changed and uncertain hue. In such an instance, there really may not be that luxury to not challenge and not disprove the basis of the ticket. A well-founded defence, in law and in fact, ought to be mounted in order to fend off later potential undesirable and consequential results. Ultimately, the implicated will be the final arbiter regarding whether to engage the services of a seasoned legal professional or not.

For example, I was once consulted by someone who stood to lose 9 points for an offence that s/he claimed s/he was innocent of. The dollar amount of the fine was not momentous, but what an impact and blemish this 9-point deduction would have on his/her driving record! There really was no choice but to dispute the charge. (We fought it and won).

So…in Ms C’s situation, there was anxiety for the above-mentioned reasons, in addition to the feeling of having been ill-treated and badly manhandled. (And admittedly, readily-available and free legal advice didn’t hurt either!). Luckily, Ms C had a good case, came well-prepared, and she was thus fortunate to have been acquitted.

Nobody invites and wishes to be involved in any kind of contentious legal matters and/or conflict. Unfortunately, our hands are sometimes tied and we may have no choice in the matter. In these and all legal affairs, whether litigious or non-litigious, each person has to take into account all factors and available resources, before making a decision on how to best proceed and/or whether or not to enlist the aid of a trained legal professional.

A ‘Top’ Immigrant

Hello and welcome!

I would like to share with you an interesting article which recently caught my attention. It was posted on Market Watch [29 May last, linked on The Wall Street Journal online], entitled ‘Canada Has Spoken: Top 25 Immigrants of 2012’. In the ensuing piece, the journalist describes the award presented by Canadian Immigrant Magazine and sponsored by rbc, to people whom they consider to be Canada’s ‘top’ 25 immigrants of 2012. This honour was bestowed in recognition of “the untold and inspiring stories and achievements of newcomers to Canada”.

A review of the list of honourees indicates that all have indeed seemingly accomplished great goals. Among the listed is an “avid” volunteer; a university professor; a realtor; a lawyer; a Member of Parliament; an architect and a physician, just to mention a few. What all of them have in common is that each one is deemed to have made great personal strides, as well as significant contributions to his/her community and to society at large.

Certainly, these immigrants ought to be acknowledged for their shining accomplishments! For starters and at a very elementary level, it isn’t exactly a stroll-in-the-park to pick yourself up from your familiar native surroundings and relocate to a new, foreign setting and environment, often to a destination which is unknown, untested and unsure. Stepping outside-of and beyond your regular comfort zone, a zone which we all normally spend a lifetime building-up and perfecting, can be a very challenging and daunting undertaking!

Furthermore, many immigrants come to this country speaking neither English nor French, with few social and/or financial resources to have their back. It is only with an incredible amount of fortitude, courage and determination, usually with the implicit hope of securing a better future primarily for their children, that they work tirelessly towards forging a new life here in Canada.

Thus, if these 25 immigrants have achieved any level of success on the accepted ‘scales’ of success, then they truly ought to be acknowledged and commended for having advanced so far in their newly-adopted country.

I must tell you, that throughout my life, I have met and befriended many many immigrants. Indeed, our own illustrious city of Montreal is very multi-ethnic. Growing-up, the older generation, relatives, their friends and acquaintances, my teachers at school, the counter-people at the bakery and vegetable store and all other community stores — was there anyone who wasn’t a newcomer to Canada?!

As an aside: This was so much the case, that I recall a light-bulb moment which I had as a teenager, at a time when my small world revolved mainly around the Jewish-immigrant population which I knew in Montreal and New York.

On one occasion, I travelled to a relative’s house somewhere in the United States. On the Sabbath, we went to a synagogue for the morning services. At the front of the chapel, I saw an elderly Hasidic rabbi sitting, with a long flowing white beard. Okay, so far very nice but respectfully, as a Montrealer I was very accustomed to seeing Hasidic rabbis with long flowing beards, so there was seemingly nothing out of the ordinary or unusual for me.

However, when he started speaking to give his sermon, that’s when I nearly fell off my seat! The rabbi addressed the congregants in impeccable non-accented English! Here before me was a true bona fide American-born boy, something which I had heretofore never witnessed! Frankly, I was too flustered and confused to be able concentrate on what he was saying. It was way too incredulous to me and I was really trying to assimilate this seemingly contradictory and unintelligible scenario. An American-born Hasidic rabbi?? With a long white flowing beard?? And he speaks English so incredibly perfectly and fluently, with not the slightest trace of any European accent?? Couldn’t be!

Back to what I was discussing, also in my practice as an immigration lawyer, have I met many immigrants and prospective immigrants. People who have yearned to immigrate to our shores for whatever the reason — to escape an oppressive regime; to give their children a better life than would have been possible in their country of origin or simply because they have married a Canadian and look forward to establishing a new life on a new soil.

And herein lies my bone of contention: Sorry and I don’t mean to rain on the ‘top 25’s’ parade, but to me the question screams: how does one actually define ‘success’? What exactly does it mean to be a top immigrant’? What is the basis for the expressed admiration for these who have allegedly excelled so? Who makes this determination and by which legitimate standards are these triumphs measured?

I ask these questions, because frankly, I believe that almost all of the immigrants whom I have met and whom I have befriended over the years, they should be considered as ‘top’ (and even more so), though perhaps using a different measuring stick. They all deserve to be credited for the nothing-less-than astonishing progress and stellar achievements which they have accomplished in Canada.

We all know that we each have a limited amount of time each day to do all of our affairs. We may plan the day in advance in our minds the night before or we may set it down to paper in a planner. Whichever, fact is that no matter how you choose to slice it, participating in any particular activity, whether by choice or not, whether cheerfully or not, will by force, take away potential time from a different activity. Respectfully, this is just a plain simple fact of life. One cannot be involved in any two activities at any one given time, or to paraphrase a well-known Yiddish expression: 'you can't dance at two weddings at the same time'! There is only so much one can do in any 24-hour period. Being engrossed in one action automatically comes at the expense of a different one. Something just has to give.

So-called ‘successful’ people and/or businesses are not born, but rather (self-) created. And not created in a vacuum, but in the laboratory of real-life. The individuals behind these successes often devote a very great deal of hard work and sweat to realize their sought-after dreams and goals. Long hours of work; toiling late into the night; rarely if ever taking days-off and/or vacation days; a heavy and constant work schedule; immense pressure and/or stress; absence from family and friends; extended periods of diminished financial remunerations; ignoring one’s physical, mental and spiritual health — these are but a few of the serious and heavy sacrifices which may result from striving to achieve any anticipated and worthy goal.

Thus, (and please, 100% not to cast any kind of aspersions of any sort on the ‘top’ 25 and other such immigrants, but) the entrepreneur who has gained financial and social status through her relentless devotion to her work, but was so absorbed and driven that she ignored her health and now has serious, critical health issues — is she considered a ‘success’? A volunteer who constantly thinks of others and so willingly comes to the aid of needy persons, while his own family sorely pines for some quality and yes, quantity time with him  — is he a ‘success’? Or the business-person / professional who thinks nothing of staying late at work on a daily basis, while ignoring his own physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs — is he/she worthy of being called a ‘success’?

The immigrants with whom I am familiar, by and large, have worked vigorously to strike a delicate balance between all the powerful and competing ‘pulls’ of their hectic lives. The post-WWll generation who was cast ashore onto Canada, was composed mostly of financially-impoverished refugees. When they landed here in Montreal, not only did they encounter abject financial poverty, they also faced a lack of proper resources to assist them with their cultural and communal needs.  And they set themselves into action, taking on painstaking hard work.

We living today in our fat-cat society may take for granted the luxurious lifestyle which we have. Most of us have advantage of incredibly developed and sophisticated infrastructures, which service our needs in our daily lives. By and large, this has also been a period of great prosperity for us all.  Yet, much of this is not the progeny of our own attempts and struggles, but rather has come about only through the incredible foresight and labour of our generous predecessors.

In addition and more importantly, that same generation also made sure to invest even greater amounts of energy into the pursuit of building and providing secure families and homes and communities for us all to live in. They ensured us with spiritual, emotional and physical stability as best as they could, especially after the adversities which they had endured. Our communities have matured and have been strengthened and consolidated in great part to their selfless exertions.

So this is the stuff of mundane, ho-hum, boring, uneventful, unglamorous, everyday immigrant life. No spotlights and runways, no climbing Mt Everest, no discovery of a cure for any ravaging disease or illness, no multi-lingual, multi-billion, multi-national corporations and definitely nobody handing out any trophies, flowers or awards. Just plain ol’ steady and secure meat-and-potatoes stuff. But in full honesty, any less deserving of credit and our immense and unwavering gratitude? I humbly submit not.

The previous generation that went about preparing ‘normal’ lives for us, they are the true ‘top’ immigrants! They are the ones who deserve the greatest accolades, acknowledgement and recognition. Perhaps the ‘top’ 25 do too, but certainly the thousands and thousands of immigrants who, time over and over, in city after city and country after country, have quietly and unassumingly gone about their daily grind and lives, paving a more hopeful and glorious path for their descendants, in order to endow them with the best possibilities ever.

Okay, so you tell me now please, who are the true and real ‘top’ heroes here??

Thanks for listening.

A Beautiful Description of Canadian and American Friendship

Dear Reader,
I watched this video and really enjoyed it. It touched my heart and I hope that it does yours too.
Without any further ado... 
Tom Brokaw explains Canada to Americans 
If the link does not work, kindly go to: http://www.wimp.com/explainscanada/.

Friend, where will you be happy??

People who purposely move from one location to  another are really a very brave lot.

To pull yourself away from the place that you are  most familiar with; where you greet your neighbours on the way out to work and where you can recommend the best bakery in the entire area; where you know how to dart about and around town using the most clever shortcuts; where you are comfortable with everything and everybody - and to leave all that for an unknown, untested and unsure environment  in the hope of a better future -  this requires an incredible amount of fortitude, courage and determination.

I want to share with you an experience of one of my friends, which he had several years  back. (All details have been confused to protect his (or her?) identity.) Single, suffering with a dead-end job and being quite bored with his life in Montreal Quebec, he decided to up-himself and move to Toronto Ontario. Maybe maybe, he imagined, he could find better  career and social opportunities there. For context purposes for the uninitiated or not-totally informed, let me just say that Toronto is a mere one-hour flight from Montreal; five and a half hours easy drive by car. As is evident, each of these two cities has its own specialties and peculiarities, but rest assured that both cities are very very much Canadian and  North American, typically allowing one to be quite at home in either city.

Well, to hear it from my friend, you'd have thought that he had gone off and joined the foreign legion! During his sojourn in  Toronto, he kvetched and complained about everything  there - not the weather, because that was too similar to Montreal but about the slow clean-up after any  snowfall; about not being able to find a good tailor; about how there was so much traffic; about how he could not find a decent bagel anywhere in Toronto; about how he found Torontonians to be less friendly and on and on and on. Eventually his sensitive emotions could not bear the strain and torment and he made haste back to Montreal.
It's common knowledge in Montreal that some people  have a sport of bashing Toronto, but I personally think that Toronto is truly a lovely city. As is Montreal.
And this is my point: here was a (native) Canadian, a Montrealer, who was moving all of 5.5 hours away, to a different Canadian city. Same nationality, language, currency, time zone, culture (though there are those  in Quebec who would have my head for saying that the cultures are similar), way-of-life etc., and that didn't make one bit of difference to him. He was miserable in his new hometown! The reason is, I humbly submit, is because when we step outside of and beyond our regular comfort zone, a zone which we spend a lifetime building-up and perfecting,  life gets tough. And my friend was unwilling to put-up  with the challenge and that's what eventually caused him to high-tail it back to La Belle Province.
Now imagine that for someone who is moving to a new, well - everything! I won't start listing, but drawing on the categories mentioned above and by definition, an immigrant is shifting to a totally  fresh experience and surroundings. Yes, of course, it's almost always something the he volunteers for and it is almost always a step up on so many levels, but it may still be a very daunting and scary proposition.

To you, the reader, I announce: Good news if you're moving to Canada - Canada is a super place to live!
According to a 'life-satisfaction' study conducted last year  by the Canadian Centre for the Study of Living Standards, together with the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, a whopping 92.1% of Canadians over the age of 12 considered themselves  to be either 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with their lives.
Furthermore, not only are we a content bunch per se, but in a different study conducted in 2007-08, Canada also  ranked as fifth on the 'global happiness index', behind Costa Rica, Denmark, Norway and Ireland.  (I wonder with what's going on in Ireland these days, if this rating would still be as accurate. As an aside,  the U.S. came in as seventh.) Not too shabby at all!
Andrew Sharpe, the executive director of the Centre,  gives his take on our Canadian joie-de-vivre: 'money can't always buy you happiness!' According to the study, household income ranks behind mental health; physical health; stress levels; a sense of belonging to a community; and even behind being unemployed, in being a determinant of an individual's happiness.
Kindly look at the table of 'Happiest Provinces &  Territories' below. Notice where PEI ranks and where Ontario fits in! Does that tell you something about what makes people happy?? Idyllic PEI vs powerhouse Ontario?! Not-so-(financially)-rich PEI vs (financially)-rich Ontario?! Even very-healthy British Columbia ranks at number 9! Maybe the researchers are actually right about this stuff. Financial wealth is appealing, but it may not be the ultimate in people's lives.
A bit further down you'll find the 'Happiest Canadian Cities' table. Please note that Canada's three major  cities are listed toward the bottom of the pile. In fact, Toronto is dead-last and Vancouver is just one up.
Mr Sharpe attributes these dismal results regarding the cities to two facts: 1) anonymity and invisibility of individuals residing in large cities [we're guessing here that that's a bad thing]; and 2) new immigrants tend to flock to these larger cities but may encounter difficulties in finding employment opportunities.

Happiest Provinces & Territories
1.  prince edward island	4.33
2.  quebec	4.30
3.  alberta	4.30
4.  new brunswick	4.30
5.  nfld &  labrador	4.29
6.  nova scotia	4.27
7.  saskatchewan	4.27
8.  yukon	4.26
9.  northwest territories	4.26
10.  nunavut	4.26
11.  manitoba	4.25
12.  british columbia	4.24
13.  ontario	4.23

Happiest Canadian Cities
1.  sherbrooke, qc	4.37
2.  brantford, on	4.36
3.  trois rivières, qc	4.35
4.  quebec, qc	4.34
5.  st john’s, nfld	4.34
6.  calgary, ab	4.33
7.  peterborough, on	4.32
8.  saguenay, qc	4.32
9.  sudbury, on	4.32
10. halifax, ns	4.32
11. guelph, on	4.32
12.  victoria, bc	4.32
13.  saskatoon, sk	4.31
14.  st john, nb	4.30
15.  capital region	4.29
16.  barrie, on	4.29
17.  kelowna, bc	4.28
18.  hamilton, on	4.28
19.  kingston, on	4.27
20.  kitchener, on	4.27
21.  regina, sk	4.27
22.  edmonton, ab	4.26
23.  montreal, qc	4.26
24.  london, on	4.26
25.  thunder bay, on	4.25
26.  moncton, nb	4.24
27.  winnipeg, mb	4.23
28.  abbotsford, nb	4.23
29.  windsor, on	4.21
30.  st catherines, on	4.21
31.  vancouver, bc	4.20
32.  toronto, on	4.15

So...all of this is to say, that:

1) If you're moving or contemplating moving to Canada, you've made a good choice!! You're coming to a happy, peaceful place!  Unquestionably, there's an adjustment period in any displacement, as there would be in your migration here. You must be prepared for it and be willing to give it some time. However, at the end of the day, you may rest assured that you've made a decision that will ultimately be  highly beneficial for you (and your family); and

2) When considering where to lay down your roots in Canada, keep an open mind. Statistics show that most immigrants tend to gravitate toward the large cities. And perhaps for good cause - family; communities; jobs and so on.

However, it might be worthwhile to entertain other less-frequented towns or cities as possible 'home' candidates. The list of cities above shows many towns and cities with smaller populations, which could  and would easily welcome and accommodate newcomers. (Or please visit some of the sites of possible destinations listed to the right of this column.) As the statistics prove, there is much joy and happiness to be had in Canada's smaller urban and rural centres.

Perhaps we can take a cue from the famous US statesman Benjamin Franklin: "Content makes poor men rich; discontentment makes rich men poor". Ultimately, happiness is always going to be right there in your head - wherever you may be. Still, it doesn't hurt if your environment and surroundings help lead you toward that sought-after 'happiness' goal.