irijuola:
My little gist.
Before I left Nigeria to Canada, I had been having occasional tooth ache. However, even before the thoughts of travelling came into my head, I had always promised myself that I will do my dental surgery whenever I travel abroad.
I reach the 'abroad', settle down small, I kon start my dental journey.
So last week I started using my dental insurance. I went for X-ray, general cleaning and scaling. The doctor told me that the reason for my tooth ache is impacted wisdom tooth. Also, the x-ray discovered 3 cavities in my teeth. Another appointment was fixed.
This week, on Monday, I went for the appointment and I had my cavities filled and my teeth whitened. lols. Anyways, I was referred to a Consultant regarding my wisdom tooth removal and I was told the consultancy fee will be $165 CAD. Appointment was fixed for today, Friday. Na so I carry myself and my teeth go the dental clinic. I filled some forms and waited for the doctor. The doctor came in, checked my teeth and gave me my bombshell, gbagaun! You'll be removing 4 wisdom tooth! How many tooth go kon remain for my tiny mouth laidis!
The doctor didn't spend 10 minutes with me and my $165CAD consultancy fee finished. Just laidat. I for consult google, mtchew . I kon gather liver ask am say when will the removal be done. He said you'll be given the quotation by the nurse/receptionist. Okay o. Tankq.
I go see the receptionist and she gave me another bombshell. She printed my quotation and i had to adjust my imaginary glasses when i saw $3800CAD. She said so when do you want me to fix your appointment. I said, padin! . I respected myself and told her to give me the hospital info card, that i'll will call to book appointment whenever i'm ready.
Presently, I am soaking my toothes in the blood of Jesus. Wherever you are presently, help a sister. Extend your mouth of prayer to my toothes. .
Abi make i cum nigeria kon do am ni . Flight go and come = $2000; Toothes removal = let's say $500CAD. Now, confuse is confusing me.

Any better advise?

From your write-up, it shows that you have dental insurance coverage in place. Is this procedure not covered under your plan? My wife had 2 of her wisdom teeth removed and it was all covered by our dental insurance.

I will suggest that you reach out to your dental insurance providers to confirm if that procedure is covered in your plan or not. If it is not fully covered, it may at least be partially (between 50% to 90%) covered. You never can tell.

Ifesinachi22:


You can ask your friend to open Interactive brokers or TD Ameritrade account. These are apps you can open and trade with in Nigeria.

He should open with his name and every other details. You send him money which he will fund the account with and send you the login details. After trading you withdraw to his account and he will inturn send the money back to you.

Depending on how you trust your guy. It will work

This is a no no for the following two main reasons and if I was the friend, I will never do it:

1. First, tax implication of doing that. The person (friend) whose name the account is under will need to file tax return during tax period and pay tax on all the gains made by the person the account was opened for. Not only that, the gain/profit from the trading will also put the friend whose name the account is under into a new tax brackets with its own several financial implications for the person.
2. Second, the act of opening account for somebody else but in your name is definitely illegal. The consequences are just not worth the risk.

nonen:
Please I need some help from anyone who is coming to Ontario, Canada in the coming weeks this January.
Someone in my immediate family has a common medical condition that requires a medication, which is not accessible over the shelves here, and we have not been able to get the doctors to prescribe the particular medication during visits to the hospitals, as that is not the standard practice here.

Please I need the help of someone who can buy the medication from any credible pharmacy in Nigeria and bring it down on his/her trip. The medication we came with is exhausted. All expenses will be taken care of.

Please reach me on WhatsApp on +1 437-225-6640

Thanks

If I understand you correctly, the particular medication is available in Canada and you have been to the doctor’s office, but the doctors are refusing to prescribe the particular medication. If this is the case, I will tell you what I have done in the past for a family member who was visiting me in Canada and needed doctor’s prescription for the same medication they were taking in Nigeria. What we did was to get his doctor in Nigeria email a prescription to him for the medication. The actual prescription from Nigeria was written on the official letterhead of the hospital in Nigeria and sent as an attachment to the email. We then went to a walk-in clinic with the prescription and explained to the doctor that he ran out of the medication (which was true) and that we needed a refill. The Canadian doctor took the Nigerian doctor’s prescription from us and issued us a new prescription for exactly the same medication.

This happened in St.Catharines Ontario when I was living there. I don’t know where in Canada your live, but I see no reason why the approach should not work in any city or province in Canada.

NaijaCanadian28:


Well, IRCC website states that the marriage must be valid under the jurisdiction in the country and under Canadian Federal law , not only under the jurisdiction in the country. The word legally recognized was also put in bold. I gave my comment based on my understanding of what was on IRCC website. I think someone already said she used Nikkah certificate for her application and she was good. I hope she makes the best decision for her.

I understand your point. However, the next sentence in that same link also indicates that a marriage that is legally recognized according to the law of the place where it occurred is usually recognized in Canada. So, by this statement and since Nikkah is legally recognized in Nigeria, it is usually recognized in Canada as well.

Bisunique25:
We have been married for 6 years with three children.

Bisunique25:

Since you guys have been married for 6 years, even if we can not ascertain for now if your Nikkah will be recognized, you can play safe by saying that you are in common law relationship (but had Nikkah) as we know for sure that common law relationship is recognized. See this link about common law relationship and how to prove the relationship:

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=347&top=14

If you take this approach, I will suggest you still inform them that you already have a Nikkah so that they don't say that you misrepresent information should it be known later that you already had Nikkah. You can inform them by writing a letter explaining the situation and include the letter in your application.

Bisunique25:
Good afternoon house, please I really your advice on a very crucial matter. Hubby and I have only the Nikkah marriage certificate, change of name affidavit and newspaper publication, and our proposed court wedding has been slated for late January next year. The issue now is that, there’s a high probability of us getting an ITA in the next draw which is before the court wedding. Should we use married or common law partner in our profile, as the court marriage certificate is not yet available. Please all suggestions will be highly welcome and appreciated.

Bisunique25:

Unless things have changed, your Nikkah is recognized in Canada because the requirement for marriage to be recognized in Canada is if the marriage is recognized in the jurisdiction where it was performed. Since your Nikkah was performed in Nigeria where it is recognized, it is recognized in Canada as well unless things have changed (I am talking from personal experience).

Just make sure that you translate the marriage certificate issued by the Mosque into English by a certified and registered translator. Attach the translation to the original when you submit your document.

Like I keep saying, unless things have changed from what it used to be in the past, you should be fine.

NaijaCanadian28:


The only kind of marriage recognized by IRCC is court wedding so you’re technically single in IRCC’s eyes. If you have been living together for at least two years and meet other criteria, you can claim common law. If you don’t fall in any of the categories I mentioned, your spouse has to fill in his express entry profile that he’s single, he can add you after you have done the court marriage.

NaijaCanadian28:

Are you sure about court marriage being the only marriage recognized by IRCC? Can you provide a link to that information. As far as I know, unless things have changed now, the requirement for marriage to be recognized in Canada is if the marriage is recognized in the jurisdiction where it was performed.

From personal experience (not hear say), I personally did not have a court marriage so also was my brother. We both had only Nikkah. He has been living in Canada since 1988 and I since 2001. So, unless things have changed, Nikkah is recognized in Canada since it is a recognized marriage in Nigeria were the marriage occurred.

SixSigma1:


@AnthonyAK:

I am very surprised and disturbed to read your claim that all you see black people do wherever you live in Canada are cleaner jobs and the like. While nothing wrong in doing those jobs but your view is limited to your circle. I will advise you to change your circle bro.

Majority of the Nigerians I know here is Canada (not to talk of other blacks) are professionals like Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, Pharmacist, Accountants, Nurses, business owners etc. and working in their professions. Also, majority of us work for big companies and we hold leadership roles like manager, senior managers, directors and vice presidents in those organizations. In fact, there are a lot of such Nigerians on this Nairaland and active on this particular thread.

I do get it that some of our people (limited number of them) are currently working survival jobs but nothing wrong with that because I know it is temporary. Many of us started like that (especially those of us in regulated professions like Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy etc.) before we got to where we are today.

In addition to the above:

Note that nobody comes to Canada and plan to do survival job for the rest of their life, but people are just temporarily doing what they legally have to do before they get their dream job. All fingers are not equal.

AnthonyAk:


Nah so e dey always be. When I used to work downtown no black person was ever working in the offices. All we did was cleaners work , of maintenance. And I worked there for 2 years.

We don dey here for too long not enough brothers working in the offices. I don't think I've ever even been interviewed by a black person.

There are two types of Nigerians here, the one that went to school and are fresh as Bleep and the others. We don't see the latter enough

@AnthonyAK:

I am very surprised and disturbed to read your claim that all you see black people do wherever you live in Canada are cleaner jobs and the like. While nothing wrong in doing those jobs but your view is limited to your circle. I will advise you to change your circle bro.

Majority of the Nigerians I know here is Canada (not to talk of other blacks) are professionals like Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers, Pharmacist, Accountants, Nurses, business owners etc. and working in their professions. Also, majority of us work for big companies and we hold leadership roles like manager, senior managers, directors and vice presidents in those organizations. In fact, there are a lot of such Nigerians on this Nairaland and active on this particular thread.

I do get it that some of our people (limited number of them) are currently working survival jobs but nothing wrong with that because I know it is temporary. Many of us started like that (especially those of us in regulated professions like Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy etc.) before we got to where we are today.

yokus:
I concur.
However, I have seen cases of false reporting
Thankfully, my friend had evidence andthe police confirmed the evidence. He would have lost everything now if not for that evidence.
Zero tolerance for abuse
Communication is key
No one deserves abuse and no one deserves to be lied on either.

You are very correct with everything you wrote. There are definitely cases of false reporting and lies. This is also not acceptable and it is also a crime called public mischief here in Canada. I mentioned it in my first post on this topic. Part of the post that talks about false reporting is below:

SixSigma1:

Having said all of the above, you mentioned that the husband is giving the wife a tough time. What do you mean by he is giving her tough time? Is it that they are just having disagreement that they need to sort out between themselves? Is it that he always wants things his own way which does not necessarily mean that he is abusing her? So, what do you mean by giving her tough time?

The reason I am asking all these questions is that if the definition of your giving her tough time is really not that she is being abused and she reports it as she being abused by him (i.e that he is committing a crime when he has not committed any crime), she (your colleague sister) can be charged for public mischief.

Public Mischief Under the Criminal Code of Canada: Section 140 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads as follows:

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

So, as you see if what he is doing is not abusive and she reports him as being abusive she may be violating section 140 (1c) above.

In conclusion, she needs to be sure of her husband’s actions before reporting him or better still talk to a lawyer first.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. So, do not take the above as a legal advice.

Just like there is ZERO tolerance for abuse, so also is ZERO tolerance for lying to the police about being abused. Hence, when in doubt talk to a lawyer first.

oseoji:

Typical gaslighting.Is it the system that raises hands for a partner to be beaten up? Is it the system that causes a partner to batter a person's mind relentlessly?
The family has already been destroyed by the abuser so why is the government being blamed?
Abuse is abuse,there's no IF ,AND or BUT.
The person benefitting from the police being called is the one who has suffered emotional, physical or psychological damage and rightly so.
A person who is able to get away from an abusive partner should be congratulated for being strong enough to leave.
Children suffer so much damage by watching their parents go at each other constantly, you produce unhappy children who repeat the same cycle thinking it is normal.
If a woman or man decides to use Canada as an opportunity to revenge,it's not anyone's place to chastise them. Do you know what they suffered?
If you treat a whole human being like shit for years and years and they bear it because of being in the Nigerian society,when they move to Canada and see they deserve better,it's only expected that the person will act out.
The guilt does NOT lie at the foot of the abused!
All these una statements are the reason why people die in abusive situations..There is only so much that a human being can take without breaking down.
Anyone who is abused should seek counseling for themselves to gather strength to move on.It is not your job to hold brief for your abuser.
You deserve better,your children deserve to grow up in a healthy happy home.

@ oseoji:
Everything you said here is so on point.

I shake my head when I hear people say that the system here is set up to destroy the family. As far as I am concerned, the system is fair, and it is set up to protect everybody irrespective of your gender (male or female). All you need to do is to know the system; do the right things and your family will be intact.

Apart from the potential death of the person being abused (even in situations where the abuse is not physical), what many people fail to understand is the extent of other damages caused by such abuse (physical, psychological, emotional etc.) on the person being abused, the children and the society. The kids see everything going on and they in turn may become abuser or they feel it is okay to be abused in a relationship. You end up bringing up kids that become abusers and bully people at school or they keep quiet when being abused or bullied at school because they think it is okay to be abused.

Even if the person being abused refuses to call the police, the neighbors may notice that something is wrong and call the police. When you take your kids to see the doctor, or you take them to the hospital, they always ask them if they feel safe at home or if they are being abused at home. Be rest assured that if the kids do not feel safe at home they will say so and you can expect a child protection agent and or police knocking on your door if it is as a result of being abused at home. So, as you can see no matter how much you try to hide the abuse, it will eventually become open. The only solution is NO ABUSE, and everybody will be happy.

Finally, I repeat, if anybody is being abused in their relationship report the abuse to the police or talk to a lawyer. To the abuser, please STOP IT before you destroy yourself with a criminal record and inability to get a job in Canada (see my earlier comments below about this). Think about this before you start abusing somebody (or before committing any type of crime) and claiming the system is set up to destroy you. The system is not destroying you. You are the one destroying yourself.

SixSigma1:
Finally, while @yokus already mentioned the possibility of being deported as an immigrant (who is yet to become a Canadian Citizen) if you commit a crime, I will also like to mention that for those of us that are already Canadian Citizens while we can not be deported, your life can be permanently destroyed if you are found guilty of any type criminal offence. You will get a criminal record which will prevent you from being able to get a job (especially professional jobs) and also prevent you from being able to travel to the USA and some other countries.

Aquilapriscilla:
Hi, I want to buy SQQQ
is this a good move ?
And lastly what other penny(<$10) can you suggest

Advice needed

SQQQ is an example of many available leveraged ETF's (but inverse). It is the opposite of TQQQ which is also a leveraged ETF. Both SQQQ and TQQQ are created to track the Nasdaq 100 and have daily return of the exact results of the Nasdaq 100 index three times for TQQQ and NEGATIVE three times for SQQQ. Note that the word “DAILY” above is in bold for a reason.

Leveraged ETF’s are are good investment if you know how to use them and you use them properly. However, if you do not know how to use them or if you are greedy you may live to regret going into them.

Personally, as a long-term investor, I use leveraged ETF's for hedging my investment risks and I have been doing so for the past 6 years now (since 2014) without any regrets. In those 6 years my portfolio has been outperforming, every year, the performance of QQQ ETF which is one of the EFTs that track the exact return of the results of Nasdaq 100 index.

As to your question, I can not tell you to go into them or not. You will have to research and learn about them first to make that decision. My recommendation is for you to google “Leveraged ETF” to read more about them.

I hope this helps.

SunshineD1:


Uncle, na wah for you o. You insult the person first time, im answer you without insult and you com insult am again.

I read your rejoinder and it would have been more meaningful without the added insult. Oga, please edit the insults. Thank you

Biko no insult me join o.

Praia:


Clearly, you think it's okay to speak to someone in such a manner but it is not. You can pass your point without having to resort to abuses - it detracts from the value of your argument and makes you appear uncouth.

Anyway, anyone who thinks it's okay to abuse their spouse needs to have the police called on them. The abuser knows their actions inflict pains on their spouse and is not allowed by law, yet they continue because they count on the silent suffering of their spouse.

It is the duty of the abuser to seek counselling, not the abused who already has to put with so much.

@ SunshineD1 and Praia:

I give thumbs up to both of you for your comments. Your comments show that you are very intelligent.

I chose to ignore him (or her as I am not sure of the person's gender) and I will continue to ignore him (or her) no matter the provocations or what he (or she) says. I am remaining silent because of the sayings that: Silence is Wisdom. “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

Boss13:


[s]Clearly I can see you just open your mouth WAAAAAAAH thinking you are making sense. It is idiots like this that continue to create problems for the Nigerian community. You have no clue about the justice system but type confidently about it.[/s]

My advise - If you are currently experiencing issues in your marital home. Go for counseling IMMEDIATELY. [s]Seeking out elders within your Nigerian Community[/s]. [s]Do not involve the Police, I repeat do not involve the Police[/s]. Every marriage is different and we cannot speculate just like this entity writing above. Seek counseling to sort your differences out. The Police are enforcers of the law and not like what we have back home. They will charge the case to court immediately regardless of the severity of the case. There is ZERO TOLERANCE for domestic disputes. Both spouses will not be allowed to see or speak with each other. This situation can put enormous stress on marriages as well as the kids.[s] I also do not want to highlight the statistics of single mothers and how badly their kids turn out to be, and how many are automatically converted as SIDE CHICKS by men[/s]. Divorce too also comes with a price and an expensive venture. [s]Don't get carried away by Hollywood situations[/s]. Sort your differences as Adults.

@Boss13

When will people like you learn to be civil and pass your own different views about a topic without any insults? If you disagree with my position, why can’t you just say yours and move on without any insults?

As for the part in bold, where are the speculations in my write-up? Did you not see where I asked what she meant by “he is giving her tough time”? Did you not see where I asked if what is happening is that they are just having disagreement that they need to sort out between themselves?

So, you mentioned that she should not involve the police if she is being abused and the abuse is physical, right (the key word here is “IF”). She should wait until she is killed if the abuse is physical, right? I hear you.

Anyway, I stand by my position and I will not further dignify you with a response no matter what you say or call me. Hence, this is my first and last response to you.

4Play:


The problem is very few people, not even professional investors, have a chance of knowing beforehand what stocks will prove to be a success. There is a lot of hindsight bias¹ amongst investors - we look at a stock that exploded and conclude that we ''shoulda woulda coulda'' bought the stock and held on till we reaped loadsa money and that we will find the next bonanza stock(s). The reality is most stocks are duds over the long run so your chances of finding that great stock and holding on to it, as it rises and falls, are fairly slim.

And it's not even about buying a growth industry stock like Tesla and NKLA with electric vehicles or Beyond Meat with artificial meat. An industry can be a success but most of the individual stocks within that industry can be widow makers. Think of the tech bubble that started in the 1990s and remember names like Blackberry, Motorola, Nokia, Yahoo.com, Palm (of Palm Pilot fame) etc. These companies operated in industries that were eventual successes but the stocks, like most stocks, proved disappointing.

So, once again, my message is investors shouldn't overestimate their stock picking skills or fall foul of overconfidence bias.² Obviously, in this environment where stocks are generally on the rise, most people might start letting their guards down. My stance remains that most people are safer just choosing indices. If you feel you are skilled enough to pick the right stocks, be prepared to lose or to experience average/mediocre returns over the long-run (over the course of years). Yes, there are anecdotes about investors/traders experiencing stunning successes but, like a lot of things in life, those are the exceptional cases and not the norm. Preaching moderation/caution to people on this thread might feel like preaching chastity to punters in a brothel but someone has to do it!

1.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hindsight-bias.asp

2.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/trading-investing/overconfidence-bias/

I read all the comments being posted on this thread daily, but I have never commented on the thread myself. I must tell you that everything you stated here is so on point. Well said bro!

How I wished that I could like this your comment one million times!

19CannyMum:
Remember that abuse is very very broad in Canada. Not just physical.

I totally agree with you that abuse takes different form other than physical. As you will see in my writeup I said she needs to report if she is being abused (I did not say if she is being physically abused). The reason I used the word abuse (instead of physical abuse) is because the abuse may not just be physical.

19CannyMum:
Emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial abuse etc are equally crimes. These are situations totally accepted as normal in Nigeria and it will be very easy to rope a good number of migrants into these forms of abuse.

Honey please money for soup... I don't have (meanwhile there's money in your account) = financial abuse in Canada.

While it is not impossible to prove things like emotional abuse or financial abuse, they are sometimes difficult to prove or be prosecuted for. For example, a spouse that refuses to be intimate with his/her partner but will go ahead and be cheating on the partner is in my book emotionally abusing that partner. But in this case, the cheating spouse can not be criminally prosecuted despite emotionally abusing their partner.

19CannyMum:
Honey please money for soup... I don't have (meanwhile there's money in your account) = financial abuse in Canada.

Again, in this case simply because the man says no to soup money and there is money in the account does not necessarily equate to financial abuse. We need to know all the facts like:
1. Is she working as well but she does not want to contribute to the family finances? She is instead of the view that her money is her own only money while his money is for both of them.
2. If she is not working, why is she not working? Is it because she can not get a job? Is it because they have agreed that she stays home with the kids? Is it because she is lazy and does not want to work but expects her man to provide for all her financial needs? If it was because she is lazy and she does not want to work, how can she claim financial abuse?
3. Based on what he makes and other financial commitments, he has already given reasonable amount of money as soup money, but she feels the amount given is not enough. The money she is already given for soup if properly managed should last the whole week, but she is asking for more soup money after about 3 days. Why would he give more money in this case even if there is money in the account when it is obvious that she is just not ready to manage with the man.

I am not saying this is what is happening in this case, but we need more facts before we can claim financial abuse.

19CannyMum:
You're a very stupid woman/man. Repeating such regularly enough = psychological/emotional abuse.

The fact that a woman, married and acting as wife is afraid that if she misyarns, her husband will drop her from his PR application = automatic emotional abuse going on in that relationship.

I fully agree with you on this. I pity the woman in that relationship!

Praia:

A colleagues sister recently landed with her family. According to my colleague, the sister's husband had been giving the wife a tough time and it's been going on for years. Several times the wife would want to react but my colleague kept calming her down because the man was the principal applicant and any outburst/reaction from her could make him take her out, which is not worth it after all the years of patience.

They all hope he changes now that they're in Canada. However, I would not be surprised if one day the wife involves the authorities or decides to call it quits after all the years of suppression.

First, if your colleague’s sister is being abused by her husband she needs to report the situation to the police right away. Nobody has the right to abuse anybody here in Canada. The fact that he is the principal applicant does not give him any power over her. She will not be deported if he is charged for abusing her. Your colleague’s sister needs to know her God given rights. Now, not later, is the time to act if she is being abused by her husband. Waiting any longer could be dangerous.

Having said all of the above, you mentioned that the husband is giving the wife a tough time. What do you mean by he is giving her tough time? Is it that they are just having disagreement that they need to sort out between themselves? Is it that he always wants things his own way which does not necessarily mean that he is abusing her? So, what do you mean by giving her tough time?

The reason I am asking all these questions is that if the definition of your giving her tough time is really not that she is being abused and she reports it as she being abused by him (i.e that he is committing a crime when he has not committed any crime), she (your colleague sister) can be charged for public mischief.

Public Mischief Under the Criminal Code of Canada: Section 140 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads as follows:

140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

So, as you see if what he is doing is not abusive and she reports him as being abusive she may be violating section 140 (1c) above.

In conclusion, she needs to be sure of her husband’s actions before reporting him or better still talk to a lawyer first.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. So, do not take the above as a legal advice.

yokus:
Good day and happy sunday.
Disclaimer- this is not legal advice
I don’t know who this would apply to but pls if you are a domestic abuser- male or female pls just don't bother to come.
If you come and you do the stupid act - you would be brought to book. It is quite pathetic to see how many Nigerian domestic violence issues are occurring amongst newly landed immigrants.
This is not Nigeria. Police will not just drop the charges because the victim said they should. It is a crime against the Crown and it is highly sensitive here- Intimate Partner Violence.
PR does not make you immune from deportation. It has Immigration consequences- criminal inadmissibility may strip you off your PR status and lead to deportation.
I'm sure we all know how tasking this process is. Is it worth landing only to get deported after?
Zero tolerance for violence and abuse from any gender.
Take care

The topic that @yokus brought up here is very important and I will like to add a few items.

Apart from domestic violence, there are several other actions that some of us that migrated here (not born or raised here) did not know were criminal acts because we see them as nothing where we came from (Nigeria or any other place). Some examples of criminal actions I have seen new immigrants (even some long-time immigrants) do out of ignorance are:
1. Not leaving your information on a parked car in a situation where you mistakenly hit the parked car.
2. Running away from the scene of a car accident and not reporting it to the police.

The above are just some examples but there are very many more actions like this (not only related to driving) that are criminal in nature that we need to watch out for.

The fact is that here in Canada there are consequences for committing crime irrespective of the size or nature of the crime committed and ignorance is not an excuse. So, we all need to educate ourselves about what are considered here in Canada to be criminal activities.

Finally, while @yokus already mentioned the possibility of being deported as an immigrant (who is yet to become a Canadian Citizen) if you commit a crime, I will also like to mention that for those of us that are already Canadian Citizens while we can not be deported, your life can be permanently destroyed if you are found guilty of any type criminal offence. You will get a criminal record which will prevent you from being able to get a job (especially professional jobs) and also prevent you from being able to travel to the USA and some other countries..

Claire40:
In awarding child custody, they will usually look at things like who is the primary carer of the child. The person with custody is the person that would typically be entitled to child support. It very simple logic. A child remains the responsibility of both parents and so both parents should contribute towards the child's upbringing. That is why men and women can be ordered to pay child and spousal support depending on who earns more and how custody is shared.

Upon divorce, except where there is a prenup ,whatever financial gain made during the marriage subject to few exceptions are divided equally between the parties. So one party rarely ends up wealthier than another. Read about the principle of equalization of net family property just in case you are interested in knowing more.

What needs to be done is to return to the drawing board. You will need to negotiate on the roles you play in the family going forward and see if your visions for the future will align with the realities in Canada so that no one feels cheated and starts acting up.

Meanwhile if before marriage, you were forming "I am a traditional man, my wife cannot work" and she was forming " I am a traditional woman, my place is in the kitchen" and based on that premise, you guys got married. It would be unfair to unilaterally change that contract. The traditional model still work for some families here, since childcare is quite expensive.

Personally I think going to work is easier than child care and housework, and there is an opportunity cost that the stay-at-home spouse pays. That is, the loss of opportunity to grow their career. I think it is wrong to look down on stay at home parents or classify them as lazy people.

For those of you considering getting a prenup, please remember to do it right. Use a lawyer(yes, they are expensive, but it's better to do it right) . Then your fiance/fiancee should also seek independent legal advice so that the chances of issues arising as to the validity of your prenup will be minimized.

@Claire40:

Everything you said here is so on point. I particularly like the part in bold and I think it is worthwhile to make those parts stand out so as to educate some of us here who do not understand (or misunderstand as the case may be) the fair and just system we have here in Canada when it comes to handling marital issues.

19CannyMum:


I've heard a lot in Nigeria, but I'm yet to meet in Canada. All the Nigerian women I've been meeting are either looking for work, working, or even hustling (buying and selling stuff, baking/cooking and selling etc.). Maybe it's just the people I'm meeting sha. Even in Nigeria it's quite cultural because where I grew up it's a woman that trains her children lol. The man just married multiple wives and lives his life while the women raise their children plus feed the man self.

The only place you can really wear your human hair and full makeup to is Nigerian church, nobody else cares much lol. You cannot spray perfume at moist workplaces. Minimalistic makeup and jewelry is the general work culture here. You can sha spend big money on expensive but minimalistic looking stuff sha, brand names and stuff.

The truth is, our Nigerian gender system in my opinion is skewed af and like Einsteino said, everybody is supposed to adjust to the new reality here. There is more you being a man than providing financially and there's more to being a woman than being able to cook and clean. Having a good life here is all about combined household income. Imagine a couple living in Toronto where house prices start from 1m and the woman does not want to be financially useful. LMAO.

However, even as you expect the woman to change role, you can start small small by splitting chores with her. Be the change you want to see .The other time we had that argument here, and so many people came out to be saying how can your wife expect you to do chores? Lol.

As for that Yankee case, note that if it was in Canada and they get divorced, the woman will be paying spouse support lol because she's the income earner. The house husband in this case is the weaker party and will gain massively from the divorce. If he's been the one taking care of the children self he'll be able to seek full custody and then he'll probably get the house. She'll also have to make child support payments even if they have joint custody.

With regards to the part in bold:

Many people do not know that the law here is that who ever makes more (man or woman) supports the other person if they have to divorce. The reason we hear more of the stories of men supporting the women are twofold. First, men on the average make more money than the women and second, due to men ego (black or white), we tend not to pursue our wifes for spousal support after divorce in cases where they are making more than us.

As for how it works in the US, while I don’t live in the US, I do know that it works the same way in some states in the US (and I guess it will probably the same all over the US). There was a situation in one of the US states that I watched on the TV about 10 years ago where the ex-wife (an African American) sued her ex-husband (also an African American) for spousal support after divorce. However, instead of getting the support she sued for, she was the one that was ordered to be paying the ex-husband spousal support because she was now making way more money than the ex-husband.

The full story was that, the ex-husband was self-employed, and business was doing so well. He married the ex-wife who was from a poor background and sent her to school to study nursing. When the ex-wife finished nursing school and started working her ex-husband did not allow her to contribute to the family expenses because his business was doing so well. So, she was just spending her money on luxury items on herself only while the ex-husband continued to spoil her with money. As time went by, the ex-husband business collapsed, and she had to be the breadwinner. Things became so difficult for them that they eventually divorced. Out of ignorance, she sued the husband for spousal support claiming that she could not sustain her life style with her current income only (forgetting that she now has more money than the husband). Long story short, she was the one that was eventually ordered to be paying spousal support to the husband. Good thing was they had no kids.

Here in Canada, there is another case of a very close female friend of mine who divorced her husband and currently paying spousal support to the husband. She has custody of the kids as well and taking care of them alone. This friend of mine and her husband were originally from Jamaica.

salford1:

Thanks bros. Longtime. Happy new year too.

Boss, It is truly happy New Year as that was my first comment on here in 2020. You know, na too many work travels no let me get much time to be here as much as I want.

I trust family is doing good.

salford:

Yes it can be situational - I agree too. We also manage our finances differently. It all boils down to choice...I also know large families that hauled their families for years in a used 8 seater van that probably cost less than $6000.

As per choice, a brand new 8 seat vehicle could cost anything from $40k upward excluding dealer fees, taxes, comprehensive insurances for financed vehicles, extended warranties, and loan interest. If one searches well enough, one can also get a very good pre-owned financed from a dealer (maybe 3 to 4 years old vehicle with a mileage of around 40k km to 80k km) for half the amount, and for a fraction of the insurance a brand new vehicle would cost. I can't even imagine what their interest rate would be since they bought a new car immediately after landing, since they would have a likely poor to fair credit history.

My first car in Canada was a 2007 car that I used for maybe 4 years. The car was 6 years old when I bought it. The brand new model of the same car was retailing for $18k (MSRP) before tax . It drove well and excellently till I sold it off or should I say dashed it off for $500 to a very lucky buyer. My Kijiji post mentioned that whoever gets to my place first gets it for $500 bucks, and it sold in less than 30minutes. . I think I bought it for 4k. I was desperate for a car then else I could have bought it even for a cheaper amount.

That car saved me tons of cash as all I did on it was regular oil change. No monthly payment and because it wasn't a new vehicle, I did not need to take it to a dealer garage that would charge upwards of $70 an hour for a simple fix that my mechanic in McKnight would fix for maybe $20 an hour. My 3rd party insurance was also $75 a month compared to a comprehensive insurance on a brand new 18k car that would be around $250 a month. All these factors ensured that I was able to bank a large portion of my then $40,000 per year or thereabouts job.

I can now afford to comfortable finance a $110,000 escalade and not break a sweat. A cheaper Tahoe would also offer me the same level of comfort as an escalade.

Summary: There is nothing wrong in buying a new vehicle as long as you can conveniently afford it, and it fits into you financial goals and budgets. Imo, some of us just see new vehicles generally as bad debts, or it could just be as a result of me being a fan of Dave Ramsey.

Oluphilips2008 shared Part 1 of the Facebook post by Bamidele.
Part 2 of the same Facebook post offers some advice on finances and debt. That was an excellent post imo.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10207079649787591&id=1771372868&__tn__=%2As-R

I have not made comments here in a long time but I will not forgive myself if I do not comment on this. With regard to buying and owning a car, the piece you have here Salford is worth billion of dollars for any smart immigrant (new or old) that have listening ears. I give you 100 likes for it!

canadaman18:


I think we have to be honest and admit that a lot(not saying all) Nigerians tried to game the system by crossing the border illegally from US and claiming asylum when their situation back in Nigeria really did not meet the threshold to be a refugee. IMO only people from war torn countries should really be claiming asylum particularly kids.

I don't think any immigrant should ever become anti-immigration but at the same time there is nothing wrong in calling for caution when accepting people in. Everyone who became a PR through EE , Student route or PNP or even refugee had to go through a lot of rigorous processes. I personally do not support any shortcuts and will not support any govt that allows shortcuts(not saying the current government is) as it makes those of us who followed process look stupid.

@canadaman18

Very well said Canadaman18. What you said above is exactly the point, particularly the parts in bold!

Refcan:
@sixsigma1

I am a refugee in Canada and based on my personal experience, I would disagree with some of your submissions.

I am saying personal experience because I cannot speak for other people. But to a large extent, the same applies for a lot of refugees as most of us are in the same shoes.

I will just give you a brief summary of my experience and I will let you judge with an open mind If we are having it better than those coming in through with express entry or if we are not contributing to Canada economically.

Came in around April 2018, spent 4 days in the processing centre which we call sandwich place cos we eat sandwich morning afternoon and night.

After processing, we were taken to YMCA who made which is a free shelter and you're not expected to spend more than a month before you get your own accommodation. By that time you should have been processed for welfare and your work permit.

So by May ending, we got $1200 for a family of 4. IE 2 adults and 2 children. So we had to leave the shelter to get our own accommodation. No work yet because work permit was not yet ready.

Got a $750 one room apartment and started work July.
Work was $12/hr
Immediately you start working, welfare checks stops, and any welfare check you collect after working, you will have to pay the government back... You can't escape that.
So in my case, only got welfare for 2 months.

As you start to work, you pay taxes like every other Canadian, but as a refugee claimant, you don't get benefits like everyone else.

You will be denied many things because you don't have a status yet.
No subsidized daycare, you pay full $35 to $40 per day as opposed to $8.25 fault for PR. Due to this wife could not work as my children were still very young

No access to any form of child benefits (maybe until after 18 months) , no gst

Most banks will even decline to issue you a credit card, you have to hunt for banks or sometimes different branches of the same bank so you can at least build your credit score

You mentioned free prescription... It's not all drugs that are covered, you still have to pay for most stuffs. Most cheap over the counter drugs like Advil, Tylenol etc are covered though. Dental is not covered if you're already working, except you are on welfare and I think it's after 1 year

Can't go to school, no access to grants
In Quebec PR are paid to learn French, refugee claimants are not paid.

Now I have a $20/hr job, which means I'm contributing more to the economy but still do not have access to many things.

As maternal said, I do believe the liberal government are not stupid and there are calculations behind the scenes
Ever wonder why mothers that cannot work because of their kids are usually processed first for hearing I think it's simply because they are currently not contributing to the economy, so they can easily get their verdict on time and be accepted or rejected.

This will be my 18th month now in Canada and we are still waiting for our hearing. Some that came after us have already been called.
Trust me, they know what they are doing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining or whatsoever, I am just giving you real life facts and not the propaganda you hear all over the place.

@Refcan:

First, I sympathize with you on your condition and situation as nobody should have to live like that.

Secondly, thank you very much for this post. Your post is very mature, civil and professional. Rather than responding like a TOUT like I see some people do here, your post is different. It is the type of post that people should be posting here to share their view even when it differs from the view of other people. That is the beauty of our Canadian democracy and our Canadian value!

As the election is over, I do not want to dwell further on it but just want to move on. However, I need to make it clear again that the election was not all about immigration or amount of refugee being allowed in. In the grand scheme of things, Immigration is way low among the many concerns that many people have.

Now to some of the points that you raised, I have said it several times since this discussion started that I am not saying that refugee do not contribute all. What I am saying is that a lot of them do not. I am saying this because I know and not because of what some politicians are saying. You happen to be one of the few exemptions that are not here to game the system but are trying hard to contribute to the system. Good job for you on that.

Furthermore, my position is not that refugee should not be accepted but the amount to be accepted should the at the level that the government have enough tax payer’s money to take care of. This will prevent the situation where you and other refugee are finding yourselves in the camp and outside of the camp like you explained.

My position is that If the government has enough money to bring in even 10 million refugees in a year without increasing taxes or borrowing money that runs into many billions of dollars to do so, by all means they can go ahead. If the government can not do so without additional debt or tax increase, then the government should only admit the amount of refugee it can adequately take care of without putting too much burden on the tax payer’s by unnecessary increasing taxes and putting us into debt that our future generations will not be able to pay back. This is what I am asking for and I don’t think it is too much to ask.

Finally, this is not to disrespect you (because you have actually earned my respect with your mature and professional response), I will no longer be commenting on this topic.

maternal:
@SixSigma,

Your post is filled with Dog Whistle. Then when people call you out, you get defensive. It's like Trump saying MAGA. Minorities living in the U.S. or the west knows he really means make America white again. People who live in Canada know where you stand and what you really mean. This has nothing to do with political parties. You're masking your hatred for certain type of immigrants with that. You have adopted the ideology of an anti-immigration Canadian. This view point is usually expressed by white canadians who like to blame everything on immigration. Most refugees don't contribute. The FACTS say otherwise. Most Nigerian refugees have false claims. How do you know that ? Are you there during their court dates ?

While you walking around all high and mighty because you finally got citizenship. Just remember immigration comes in different forms. Not everyone is qualified or has the money to come in through the EE. Besides, a refugee from Syria for example who comes here because THE WEST is bombing their country, doesn't have time to fill out an EE form when bombs are dropping on them. Never bash or judge someone who's trying to migrate to Canada, regardless of how they get here. Because ultimately they're coming over for the SAME reason you came over here. To improve their lives.

You find it difficult to follow simple request to discuss maturely and professionally without resorting to name calling. This is sad. Well, it is obvious that you are just an attention seeker and I am not going to give you the attention you badly crave for. I will also not stoop so low to your level. You can believe whatever you want to believe about me.

Quote me as many times as you want and also label me anything you want. I will no longer dignify you with a response because you simply do not deserve it.

salford1:
Liberal is in. Minority gov.

Yes, Liberal is in as minority.

Congratulations to all of you my liberal friends.

As for my fellow conservatives, we still have a big role to play as the official opposition. Let us hold the liberal accountable to ensure that we do not go into the amount of debt they would love to get us into.

Note that we may be different in our ideas of what is good for Canada but I strongly believe that we both (conservatives and liberals) want the best for Canada. This is the most important fact irrespective of the results today.

God bless Canada!

salford1:

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't able to get a government archive that talks about the caps back then. But I was able to get a screen shot on a different forum I was active on:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2011/2011-06-24a.asp

Changes to economic immigration programs will help further reduce backlogs and improve wait times

Ottawa, June 24, 2011 — Canada is adjusting its intake of applications from economic immigrants to further reduce the backlog and improve wait times while meeting the country’s labour market needs, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today.

“The backlog of federal skilled worker applications is now half of what it was when we announced the Action Plan for Faster Immigration in 2008,” said Minister Kenney. “These measures will help us to continue that progress.”

Canada receives many more immigration applications than can be accepted every year. As part of ongoing efforts to better align application intake with priorities for immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is limiting the number of new applications it will consider in certain categories of the federal economic immigration stream.

Effective July 1, 2011, the changes will affect new applicants to the federal Skilled Worker, federal Immigrant Investor and federal Entrepreneur programs. The changes will not affect the number of permanent resident admissions in 2011 in these three categories.

“Canada continues to welcome historically high numbers of new immigrants each year, but the Government continues to receive applications that far exceed this number,” said Minister Kenney. “If we don't keep putting reasonable limits on new applications, backlogs and wait times will grow.”

In November 2008, the government first took steps to identify for processing those federal skilled worker applications that responded to Canada’s labour needs, such as applicants with arranged employment offers from Canadian employers or with experience in an occupation in high demand. In June 2010, the government released an updated list of 29 priority occupations and introduced a global cap of 20,000 for federal skilled workers, as well as a sub-cap of 1,000 under each occupation. Over the past year, CIC has received approximately 13,800 federal skilled worker applications under the priority occupations list (figure accurate as of June 24, 2011).

Now, for applicants who do not have an offer of employment in Canada, the government will further limit the number of new federal skilled worker applications that are considered for processing to 10,000 a year, beginning July 1. This limit will help better align the number of applications with labour market demand. Within the 10,000 limit, a maximum of 500 new applications in each of the current 29 priority occupations will be considered.

In addition, the Minister is introducing a cap of 700 on new federal investor applications. Although last year, CIC made changes that raised the minimum net worth and investment requirements, it continues to receive applications in excess of what is required. An annual cap on new applications will allow for progress on backlog reduction while ensuring that the Department has a sufficient volume of new files to meet its commitments.

The Minister is also introducing a temporary moratorium on new federal entrepreneur applications. Wait times for this program currently stretch to eight years in some visa offices. By ceasing to accept new applications as of July 1, the government will prevent further processing delays. The federal Entrepreneur Program will undergo a review in the coming months to ensure that Canada is better able to attract and retain innovative entrepreneurs.

The authority for these changes, which are being introduced through ministerial instructions, comes from amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act approved by Parliament in 2008 as part of the Action Plan for Faster Immigration. The instructions are meant to be a flexible tool that allows the government to align the intake of immigration applications with priorities for immigration.

Since these changes were implemented in November 2008, the backlog of pre-2008 federal skilled worker applicants has decreased by 50 percent. As well, priority applications are being processed in a period of months rather than years, as was the case prior to the 2008 changes.

The CIC website will be updated on July 1, 2011, with details on application requirements and procedures for affected programs.

Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CitImmCanada

For further information:

Kasra Nejatian
Minister’s Office
Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Media Relations
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Ontario Region
613-952-1650
CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.ca


The bolded was the stream I arrived on and I was certain it was 20k per year
Applications usually filled within 2 months of application, and you wait till it reopens the following year with changes.
The over 200k in the data table you posted might include other streams like family reunification, temporary foreign workers, Grandparents etc. It specified immigrants but did not mention if they were permanent on did not also specify the visa classes.

The article you posted is correct when it comes to the number of new skilled worker applications to be accepted for that year and not the number of skilled people to be granted landed immigrant papers for that year. These are two different things. They had to reduce number of new application so as to focus on already submitted applications causing the backlog. The article also made it clear that the reason why the number of new application was being reduced is because there is already a backlog that needs to be addressed and it was being addressed by reducing the number of new applications to allow them time to process existing application.

The other option they could have done which they actually eventually did is to send back applications if they have been in the backlog for X number of years. In fact, this strategy is what is currently being used for EE in the sense that if you do not get selected from the pool within a year, you profile is canceled and you have to submit a new profile. This is being done is to avoid backlog as they have learnt from past experience. By the way, profile being valid for only one year also started with the conservative and the liberal continued it as it makes sense to do so to avoid backlog.

maternal:
@SixSigma,

[b]Refugees add as much, if not more than anybody to the economy. This stigma/lie that has been going around for years, as been proven wrong many times. The Vietnam refugees in the 60's I believe, both U.S soldiers fleeing from the draft or actual Vietnam citizens have done well in Canada. The current Syrian refugees that came what 4 years ago are doing as good if not better than EE. Creating jobs and adding to the economy. These are facts, data kept by the federal government, which you can research and validate for yourself. Ironically refugees are so bad, that many municipalities were begging the federal government to settle them in their region. Why would they want individuals who wouldn't contribute to their economy come there ? Because refugees do contribute to the overall economy. A good amount of refugees are degree educated if you don't know. The Syrian refugees weren't illiterates from the streets. Lastly, any individual who touches Canadian soil and claims refugee, the federal government MUST hear their claims. This is according to the agreement sign by the Canadian government with the UN. How can any government reduce the refugee category ? Our government must hear a refugee claimant and be in partial. To reduce that category, you're basically saying you're going to reject claims ahead of time[/b] ?

Where in my post did you see that I wrote that refugee do not contribute to the economy at all? Please point it to me. What I said is that most (not all) refugee do not contribute to the economy. When does saying most of them do not contribute to the economy equate that they do not contribute to the economy at all? Of cause, there are always exemption in every situation. The fact that you listed some of them doing well does not mean that most of them are. The questions is what percentage of them are adding to the economy compared to what the government invest in them but not invested in economic immigrants/skilled workers (EE). If the government invested 25% of what they invest in refugees in the EE applicants, I am sure most EE will find it easier than they are finding it today.

Where did you see in my post that refugees are illiterate? Honestly, I am not sure why you are making all of these things up just to suite your write up.

How does my support for reduced number of refugee (but increased number of EE) equate to not hearing their case. Hear their case, but admit only the number that the economy can sustain considering that they have to be fully taken care off for like 2 or 3 years with free house, spending money, free prescription drugs (that even Canadian citizens do not have) free dental care (that even Canadian citizens do not have ) etc before they can stand on their feet. Do EE get that treatment, or they have to come with their own fund that should last them for 6 months before they can ask for government support. Even, when they qualify for government support after 6 months they do not get free dental or prescription drugs.

maternal:


Are you God ? How do you know this without listening to their cases ? You already have a mis-conception about Nigerian refugee claimant. I can't believe an immigrant, a black African is this anti- immigration. Do you know how many oyibo people I've met who are against the EE and don't feel immigrants coming in with that program should be here; especially Nigerians ? In short do you know how many oyibo's hate you and the fact you're here ? And you're spreading the same hateful sentiment towards your fellow people trying to come here ? Lastly you are confusing refugees to irregular refugees. Go research the difference.

Again, why are you just making up things to suite your write up. Where did I mention that I am anti-immigration. I said, do not increase refugee (regular or irregular) at the expense of EE. Go and read my post again. Also, what has being black got to do with that? Is it only black that claim refugee? I am not sure why you are just mixing things up. Look, my friend, I know the difference between regular and irregular refugee and still stand by my position that the number should be reduced as our economy can not sustain the current number. We should rather increase EE.

I take offence in you labeling me as spreading hateful sentiments towards people. Why is it difficult for you to disagree without resorting to bad labeling or name calling? What is hateful in my write-up. I request again that you choose your words carefully when responding to my post. We need to take emotions out of our discussions and also be civil, mature and professional when discussing.

maternal:


Not true and the liberals have said and proved otherwise. You don't become a G7 nation with a high quality of life by only trying to recruit refugees. 99% of new Nigerians I've met are educated people who came under the EE. The other 1 percent are refugees, and even them are very educated and ready to work. Skilled workers cost the country nothing. Why wouldn't they favor them ?

I am not sure the point you are trying to make here because if anything, your statement supports my position that we need to attract more EE and less refugees.

maternal:

Ya the Liberals don't create or attract professional jobs with their backwards immigration policies. lol

Again, I never said liberal do not create professional jobs at all. What I said is they do not create professional jobs as much as the conservative do. Make sure you read and understand before commenting please because you are just talking almost everything I wrote out of context.

salford:

Your post are always very good and a delight to read. Even though you come here just once in a while.

My reply below might not be coherent as I am still at work.

I landed when Harper was the PM and can't really say much about the previous government before Harper. You are right about Kenney Introducing the occupation in demand. I came to Canada when the conservatives only accepted 1,000 people per occupation for a max of 20,000 per year for the 20 occupations on the list. Lots of Nigerians do not and will not qualify back then. Who knows what level the immigration numbers would be reduced to when the conservatives get in? I remember that all applications submitted prior to 2007 were cancelled and application fees refunded. CIC started on a fresh page and the Cons limited intake. This helped in getting rid of the backlog maybe? Immigration is actually one of the least of the factors I considered in making a decision. I just could not see how Sheer would better the economy much more than what Trudeau has done.

I also had a different experience when I landed in Canada. could be because I worked in a regulated profession, but friends that did not work in a regulated profession and landed the same time I did still had a tough time getting good jobs. Alot did survival jobs, even those in IT who now seems to be enjoying a surplus job market at the moment. Then I would discourage people about coming to Canada. Nowadays, people are getting jobs even from Nigeria, good jobs and not unprofessional jobs. This is why mentioned that it seems Trudeau was doing better in terms of job creation.

Even though there might be an increase in tax should the Liberal get in. I doubt if that will be much to the extent of affecting people that are already well off. My family's income is at a point where we get nothing from the government due to being placed on a higher tax band. We are still going to get screwed by any government in power anyway. lol. I do not bother much about that because we should really be taking care of our down trodden or those struggling to make ends meet This from from taxes paid by the well offs. This helps keep crime rate down.

I do agree with you about the deficit. However, I still don't see how the Conservatives would be able to help in reducing deficits without bringing in more tax. All we have heard has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Cuts would likely create more problem for money to be spent on. I believe Harper had a deficit when he was in power too but I am not totally sure.


It was a bit tough for me to decide on what party to vote. I mentioned in one of my previous post that I can't really see what Sheer is bringing to the table that would swing some of us in the middle to vote Con. Truedeau had scandals here and there which dipped his ratings to me. Both parties were a tie on who to vote, but I eventually went the Liberal as they have a better plan when it comes to diversity and inclusion. If Ambrose was still the Con's leader, I would have easily voted Con without giving it a 2nd thought.

The provincial Cons here in Saskatchewan aka SaskParty are actually doing well and were able to balance the budget via the introduction of new taxes or increase existing tax, and not cut cut cut like Kenney is proposing in Alberta, I still don't see how a government can cut it's way into a balanced budget.

I read the article below this morning before going to vote. It also helped me in making a decision as per the performance of the economy (Truedeau vs Harper).

https://business.financialpost.com/executive/posthaste-which-party-will-be-better-for-canadas-economy-theres-one-that-may-have-a-marginally-better-plan/amp

I do not think my vote will make much difference here in my riding anyway. Sask is majorly conservative. A Con would be representing my riding in parliament.

@Salford1:

I like reading your post as well. As for coming here once in a while, my brother it is because it is not easy keeping up with everything going on here but I try my best to read almost every post when I do check in.

As per the 20,000 a year immigration level you quoted above, you may want to check your number again. During Harper years (Feb 6, 2006 to November 4, 2015), the immigration number was between 238,130 (in 2007) and 270,580 (2010). This number was much higher than the liberal government of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (Nov 4, 1993 to Feb 6, 2006) before it. Liberal number from the year 2000 to 2005 where between 199,190 (2003) to 256,410 (2002).

See the link below for immigration number for 2000 to 2018. Take note that 2000 to 2005 number belong to liberal, 2006 to 2015 numbers belong to conservative and 2016 to 2018 again belong to liberal.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/443063/number-of-immigrants-in-canada/

When it comes to writing articles about who is better for the economy between conservative and liberal anybody can write anything and back it up with data. Just like you I also find the article below that states that the conservatives are better for the economy and urging students to vote conservatives ([url]see the link below[/url]). So, at you can see it all depends on who is writing the article. So, for me, I only go with the facts as I know it and as I see it affects me and my Canadian community and the future of our unborn kids, grand-kids, great grand-kids etc.

https://thevarsity.ca/2019/10/18/for-economic-growth-students-should-vote-conservative/

I know that you already voted, but please do not think your vote does not count even if the party of your choice does not win. Your vote counts a lot my brother. Thank you very much for voting even if it was the liberal that you voted for. Together we will make Canada better irrespective of who eventually wins. If my conservative wins, I look up to you to hold us accountable while I will also hold the liberals accountable if they eventually form the next government. That is the beauty of our democracy (unlike the APC/PDP democracy).

Note: If anybody disagrees with my write-up below, I expect that you do so maturely and professionally. No name callings or abuses of any form please.

This election is way more than just immigration, so let us not narrow it down to only immigration issues. Even if we were to narrow it down to immigration issues I am seeing a lot of half facts and half lies many people on this platform are talking about regarding the conservative plans for immigration.

Yes, conservative plans to reduce immigration level (fact), but what people are not saying (maybe they don’t know) is that for the most part they (conservative) are only trying to reduce the percentage of refugee category (people that mostly do not add to the economy but rather take away from it) which the liberal has increased drastically since taking over power while they the liberal have been reducing the percentage of economic/skilled worker immigrant (i.e. EE) which are the actual people that contribute to the economy. Now tell me, for those of you castigating people that are in support of reduction in immigration level via reduction in percentage of refugee immigration, how many Nigerians are migrating to Canada as a refugee compared to the number that come through economic/skilled worker immigrant (EE)? I may be wrong, but my guess is that 95% come through EE and about 5% through refugee (my figure may be wrong, but I am very sure it is close). And by the way, we all know that almost all refugee claimants from Nigeria are not true refugee but rich people claiming to be refugee.

In my view, considering that Nigerians migrate to Canada mainly as economic/skilled worker immigrant, we stand to get more Nigerians into Canada under the conservative plan (because the focus is on more economic/skilled worker immigrant) as against the liberal plan which is in favour of more refugees.

salford:

Who knows? I won't call them bad belle sha. I am sure they have their reasons and not just for some petty stuffs. It's more complex than that. e.g. Infrastructure and social amenities/services have not been able to keep up with the increase in population (this one I know Sha). There are also lots of misinformation out there fueling anti-migrant sentiments. Better to let Bawss explain his reasons before anyone slams him.

In my opinion, If like 7 or 8 years ago, when jobs were scarce and hard to come by (i.e. days of NotCanada), I could understand the sentiment of not wanting lots of immigrants, but Trudeau worked hard in terms of job creation especially for non regulated professions..New immigrants are atleast getting jobs in non regulated fields, apart from maybe Alberta and Sask that have been hit by low price for oil and potash.

However, Nigerians are a different breed of people
They vote based on funny reasons.
Do you know some Nigerians vote right wing parties because of gay/lesbian stuffs, while their bros are using the same gay/lesbian format to apply for refugee in Quebec and anywhere else in the world.

Trudeau bashing continues at work today. I just stay quiet so no one labels me a traitor

@Salford1

I like the way you differentiated yourself from some other people in your message above about not calling people bad belle people simply because their view is different from yours. This is our Canadian value, we disagree, we voice it out and we are still friends even if we differ politically.

Now, there are many points you raised that I totally disagree with (the items in bold). I don’t know how long you have been a permanent resident in Canada, but I have been a permanent resident in Canada going through liberal government (Jean Chretien and later Paul Martin), then conservative government (Stephen Harper) and now another liberal government (that I hope will end today) while living in 2 different provinces (Ontario and Alberta). In all those periods, the liberal government were always bad period for professional jobs (notice I did not just say jobs. I said professional jobs). Yes, liberal tend to create a lot of minimum wage jobs while professional job suffers. This is what has just happened since 2015 till now as well. While under conservative, a lot of both professional jobs and minimum wage jobs are always created. So, all this mention of job creation liberal is talking about are mainly minimum wage jobs with very little professional jobs being created. Now tell me, how many Nigerians coming here via EE want to end up working in minimum wage jobs rather that in their professional jobs. I am sure many new immigrants here can confirm if it has been easy for them to get professional jobs they dream of getting when they started their EE journey and what the impact of liberal job creation is in their lives.

salford1:

10 years ago will be FSW (occupations in demand) when Jason Kenney was minister of citizenship and immigration. In those days applications and landing takes 5 to 10 years from start to finish.

I honestly think that you are being mischievous with your statement that application takes 5 to 10 years when Kenny was the minister of citizenship and immigration. You chose not to add that the backlog was a result of the liberal government of Jean Chretien and later Paul Martin. They created the backlog and could not fix it. Kenny came in and tried to fix it first by introducing the FSW (occupations in demand) which reduced it a little bit and he later introduced the current EE. The backlog has been completely eliminated and fixed with Kenny’s EE before the current liberal government came and continue with the good work of Kenny. You even mentioned it yourself in your post below that Kenny (conservative introduced EE.

salford1:

EE was the brainchild of Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander under Harper.

Finally, for me, I vote for low tax (more money in my pocket), I vote for my Canada living within her means and not living on debt that my great grand children will not be able to pay (as the liberals are currently doing and will continue to do), I vote for balancing the budget, make the economy business friendly so that we can create more professional jobs (not just minimum wage jobs). I vote against the fear mongering of the liberal government rubbishing the conservative platform. I vote against the party that makes it look like it is bad to be successful and they penalize you for being successful. Hence, I voted for change already during the advance polling so that I can help get people out to vote for change today.

Northeastern:

InvertedHammer you say what?

So I live in an apartment where I pay 1500 dollars for rent per month, and I can take a mortgage of 300,000 and pay the same 1500 on the mortgage per month. After 30 years, I'll own the 300,000 home while I'll end up with nothing renting the apartment.

Can you please explain why you said mortgage is never good?

salford1:
Mortgage this mortgage that. It all depends on what the person can afford. Yes people buy their houses outright overseas too but not common.
Rule of thumb is cost of home must not be more than times 3 of annual income.

It is always good to have lots of down payment or buy outright if one can afford. Doing this will save or cut down the interest since banks are the winners in mortgage transactions.

In the above example by someone, 1500×12×30 = 540,000
In effect, conservatively, the person would have paid 240k in interest. Not factoring additional costs like propeety tax and maintenance. Interest are renegotiated every 3 to 5years. Sometimes it goes up, sometime it comes down. Houses too sometimes appreciate, sometimes it depreciates.

In that same example above, the person renting and paying $1500 monthly rent would also have paid $540,000 after 30 years and end up with nothing after 30 years. Even if the house market falls in 30 years (after the mortgage is fully paid), the person paying mortgage would still be able to sell the same house for something (never zero) no matter how small and get some of their investment (mortgage payment) back. While also, if they are lucky and the house market rises the person that was paying mortgage may be able to sell the house even more than $540,000 after 30 years (when mortgage is fully paid) and take away all of this money.

In my book, mortgage wins all the way (even when compared to outright cash purchase) as it allows you to free up capital for investment say in the stock market. Take note that the average annual return for the three key market indexes (DJIA, SP 500 and Nasdaq) for the last 30 years (July 1989 to July 2019) are roughly 8.3%, 7.8% and 11% respectively.

Rather than paying cash for a house I would rather invest my free up money in the stock market to get an average return of say 9% annually (over 30 years) while I am paying mortgage interest of an of average 5% annually (over 30 years). This leaves me with 4% annual return for 30 years.

iaatmguy:
could you please explain further ?And what one should do instead
Thanks.

When it comes to RRSP and TFSA, there are so much to talk about that it will take too much time and effort to do.

As a summary, your RRSP contribution limit is the lesser of:

• 18% of your earned income in the previous year, and
• Dollar limit that the government determines and publishes every year.

See the link here for the limit up to 2019: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/registered-plans-administrators/pspa/mp-rrsp-dpsp-tfsa-limits-ympe.html

As, for TFSA, the current annual limit for 2019 is $6000. See this link for the limit for previous years: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/tax-free-savings-account/contributions.html

Like I mentioned earlier, there is so much to know about RRSP and TFSA than what can be put here. So, my recommendation to you is just to google RRSP and also TFSA to read and familiarize yourself with what they are and how they work.

Hope this helps.