Document General Form 4 Ontario: Fill & Download for Free

Britain's battle plan to counter the United States was stated succinctly by the Admiralty on 6 January 1905, in a memorandum submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence:"To use all possible means to avoid such a war."The First Lord of the Admiralty expanded on that in his introduction to the report:There is no party in the United Kingdom nor even, I believe, in the British Empire which does not contemplate a war with the United States of America as the greatest evil which could befall the British Empire in its foreign relations. There is no statesman of any party who does not consider cordial friendship with the United States of America as the principal aim and object of British foreign policy.However, he did not consider the situation to be that gloomy. There was, he believed, no realistic chance of a war breaking out between the two countries in the foreseeable future. The only reason for conflict would be if the American people suffered "an attack of frenzy" and gave in to "a moment of criminal folly" by launching an unprovoked attack on Canada.(It should be noted that he did not consider this to be particularly probable; though he was perhaps thinking of the US yellow press agitation for war with Spain after the sinking of the Maine.)If America did go to war against Britain and Canada, a military victory was beyond the Empire's power. The only hope would be a moral victory. Or, to quote him again,Neither the British Empire nor the whole civilized world could conquer the United States of America, but the British Empire could, in my opinion, enable Canada to make so strenuous and resolute a defence against invasion as to give the American people time to return to righteous sanity and to recoil with horror from a war of aggression, of oppression, of invasion — a war antagonistic to every principle of their own existence.The circumstances of this memorandum were that the previous month, December 1904, the British Army's General Staff had prepared its own memorandum discussing the situation they would face if war with the USA broke out. This was done as part of their general obligation to analyse the strategic situation Britain might face in every potential region of conflict. The Army stated that while western Canada was vulnerable to American attack, the east could successfully hold out; but only if it received support from the Navy. The government therefore passed their memo to the Admiralty asking for their comments and input. As we've seen, the Navy was far more pessimistic.The Army memorandum, entitled 'The Defence of Canada', was dated 13 December 1904. It described that there were four potential regions of Canada that faced a possible US invasion, and analysed the situation for each in turn.The Eastern provinces. These were judged to be safe; the terrain between Maine and New Brunswick/Nova Scotia was far too rough for a serious invasion attempt. As long as Britain kept command of the oceans this region would not be threatened.'Canada proper' (Quebec and Ontario). See below.Manitoba and the North West. This region was thought to be too large for the USA to occupy in total; but Winnipeg, the centre of communications, was vulnerable to quick conquest. Furthermore, the Canadian Pacific railway that ran north of Lake Superior would be easy for a US expeditionary force to cut, isolating the West from reinforcements. As such, this region could not be defended.The Pacific coast. This area was even more isolated than Manitoba, and thinly populated. It would quickly fall to an American invasion if one were launched.Canada in 1905The decisive battle would thus take place in 'Canada proper': this was the location of most of the Dominion's population and wealth. Losing it would be "an imperial disaster of the first magnitude".As far as the balance of military forces went, it was thought that the initial advantage would lie with the USA, then the balance would temporarily tip in Canada's favour, then decisively back in the United States' direction again. This was because in 1904, Canada was organising its population into a militia, but the USA only had its regular army, with no system of reservists.As such, the US Army would be able to seize key strategic points such as the Welland Canal in the opening hours of the war before the Canadian militia could mobilise. After that, though, Canada's militia would briefly give it a military force about equal to that of the United States. The US army would find it difficult to expand quickly since it had no system in place to do so. However, as the example of the American Civil War showed, that would not be an insuperable problem given enough time to get organised. Ultimately, a nation of 70 million people has an overwhelming advantage over one of five million.For a time, though, the Canadian army (with Imperial reinforcements) could probably defend at least its heartland. The key here was terrain, because the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway are excellent natural defences. Those parts of Canada lying south of the Seaway (the area of Quebec south of Montreal, around Sherbrooke) would have to be abandoned.It was believed that the US would quickly gain naval control of Lakes Huron and Superior: as mentioned above, this would allow them to cut the rail link to Winnipeg. If the US managed to dominate Lake Erie as well, this would allow them to support an invasion of southern Ontario from the directions of Detroit and Buffalo. Conversely, a British fleet operating on Lake Erie would allow them to threaten Cleveland and Buffalo with naval bombardment, as well as protecting the area around London. However, it was uncertain how practical this would be given the lack of Canadian port facilities on the lake compared to the many US shipyards that could build new warships. Royal Navy ships deployed to Lake Erie would probably be on a suicide mission, trying to cause as much damage as possible before they were sunk.While Lake Erie was probably going to fall to US control quickly, Lake Ontario was both more defensible and more important. As long as it remained under British/Canadian control, Toronto and eastern Ontario would be safe from attack. It was expected that the defence line would run from Hamilton northwards. However, if the US Navy seized control of Lake Ontario as well, they could land troops to outflank the Canadian defences. There would be nothing to stop them sweeping along the north coast of the lake as far as the Ottawa river, where the Canadians would have to make their final stand.Reinforcements might be brought from Britain and the rest of the Empire, but that would take time.In response to this document, the Admiralty produced its own analysis of the naval situation. It was pessimistic.They pointed to the massive expansion of the US Navy in recent years. It seemed clear to them that it would not be long before the American fleet became the second largest in the world (overtaking Germany, France and Russia), and it was at least conceivable that they might attempt to beat Britain for the top place as well. This all suggested "a fixed determination on America's part to win and maintain naval predominance in the Western Hemisphere".US Navy Atlantic Fleet in 1907In the Admiralty's judgement, the Royal Navy in 1905 was still capable of defeating the US Navy at sea, driving it back into its ports and seizing control of the Western Atlantic. However, this would only be possible if — and it was a big 'if' — Britain was not facing any simultaneous threats from other major naval powers at the time war broke out. If a large part of the Royal Navy had to be kept at home to protect against a possible German or French attack, control of the Western Atlantic would have to be conceded to the US Navy. If the Americans continued to expand their navy at the present rate, they might be able to retain control under any circumstances.Of course, British reinforcements could only be sent to Canada if they had control of the oceans.Worse still, Britain was uniquely vulnerable to economic blockade. A large proportion of her wheat supplies came from the United States, and war with the USA would thus cause "dearth and distress" and even posed a risk of "general famine". Alternative sources of imports could doubtless be found in an emergency, but they would still be vulnerable to US commerce raiders.In the other direction, the USA was by no means as vulnerable. True, their overseas possessions such as the Philippines could be captured; but such a loss would be barely felt. US ports could be blockaded; but as the Union discovered in the Civil War, America has thousands of miles of coastline from which blockade runners can set sail. The US economy depended far more on internal commerce than foreign trade, so even a successful blockade would cause disruption but not collapse.In short, it was concluded that Britain could probably win the naval war in the Atlantic if diplomatic circumstances were favourable; but while this would "humiliate" the US government, it would not be enough to "bring the country to its knees".When it came to the defence of the Great Lakes, the report was even more pessimistic. It was pointed out that a treaty with the USA signed in 1818 prohibited either country from maintaining more than a single small warship on Lake Ontario, and two on the Upper Lakes, in peacetime. If Britain denounced the treaty and stationed a naval force to defend Lake Ontario, the US would be fully justified in countering it with a large naval force of their own, so nothing would be gained. Worse still, for Britain to break a treaty and station a new military force on the US northern border would inevitably be seen by American public opinion as a hostile and provocative act, and might trigger the very war that the UK hoped to avoid.If it was not possible to base a fleet in the Great Lakes in peacetime, what about sending one there via the St Lawrence seaway immediately on the outbreak of war? The ships could be stationed at Montreal, and it was noted that the Dominion government had proposed upgrading its current Fisheries Protection Fleet (16 small ships, half of them armed with one or two small quick-firing guns) into a naval militia using surplus Royal Navy warships. However, the Admiralty disapproved of this as well.The problem was that for over a hundred miles the US border ran along the St Lawrence. They could just station a few soldiers with artillery along the south bank, and completely block passage by warships into Lake Ontario. Furthermore, the St Lawrence is blocked by ice in winter, while the USA had dozens of shipyards and ports along the southern shores of the Great Lakes which could build warships in quantity while the British were prevented from sending any of their own there.In conclusion, "To bring vessels of His Majesty's Navy to Lake Ontario in peace is not permissible, to being them in war will not be possible".The possibility was floated that a detachment of submarines and torpedo boats could be transported to the northern shores of the Lakes by rail, and deployed there. These would not, however, be sufficient to take control of the Lakes; but they might cause serious economic disruption to US commercial shipping for a while at least.After finishing the report, the Admiralty Board sent it for comments to one of the civilian Lords of the Admiralty, A H Lee MP, who had spent five years in Canada surveying their defences and also served for a while as British naval attaché in Washington DC. He entirely agreed with their conclusion. The thought of fighting a war with the United States over Canada was 'unwise', 'useless' and 'ludicrous'.I can only regard a war between this country and the United States as the supreme limit of human folly. [...] In such a war we could not possibly win — no combination of Powers could successfully invade and conquer the United States — and the contest if persisted in could only result in the destruction of the British Empire and the downfall of the English-speaking race.All was not lost, however. Lee reported that in extensive conversations with US naval and government figures during his time in Washington, he had not encountered any hostility from them. The American naval expansion, he felt confident, was directed against Germany, not Britain. Both private conversations with government officials and public editorials in newspapers spoke of a fear that sooner or later, Germany would seek to challenge the Monroe Doctrine and, out of "land-hunger", attempt to seize control of regions in Latin America, perhaps in conjunction with France and Russia. That would mean war with the United States. American opinion-formers generally looked to Britain for help to stop such expansion, or insure against its taking place at all, rather than seeing Britain as another threat to be guarded against.The policy recommended by the Admiralty, therefore, was to abandon any thought of successfully fighting a war against the United States in defence of Canada, and instead build on the increasingly warm and cordial relations between the two English-speaking countries. The aim would be full cooperation, perhaps even a formal alliance.The plan seems to have worked so far...

NIMBY is a nice crisp acronym, but it is completely inadequate as a categorization of the various people fighting against broader penetration of renewables in energy grids world wide and their motivations.Image courtesy of Goodbye NIMBY, hello PIMBYWhat are the categories?NIMBYsTrue BelieversFossil Fuel ProfiteersLibertariansNuclear AdvocatesAnthropogenic Global Warming DeniersMisguided EnvironmentalistsArmchair EconomistsOpportunistsRemember, that while this categorization is useful, it is important to keep in mind that all of these people are human beings and that their opposition to renewables is typically only a portion of their lives. They all love their families, give to charity and are kind to stray animals. Treat them with respect even if they attack you personally, and (try to) limit your attacks to their ideas and communications.This categorization is relatively complete, but please suggest improvements and additional examples of individuals who exemplify one or more of the categories.Note that I'm not talking about individuals who are mounting very site specific campaigns based on valid concerns such as harm to specific endangered species, as is obvious from my comments on the proposed Ostrander Point wind farm in Ontario, but people who make broad comments across larger areas.1. NIMBY - Not In My Back YardA subset of NIMBYs are one of the most potent anti-wind energy groups in almost every jurisdiction around the world. These are well-connected, well-off urbanites with country homes that they have typically purchased later in life. They know how to run PR campaigns, they have deep pockets and they deal with lawyers regularly. They are often fully capable of running large scale campaigns to support their local fight to preserve their rural fantasy land.Local, rural working people who opposed wind energy solely on NIMBY principles do exist, but assuming that all opponents to wind energy are NIMBYs is insulting to everyone involved and ineffective as a basis for communication. In general, the local, working NIMBYs are pragmatic. They don't want their view spoiled or their local area changed, and some will use whatever tactics are necessary to achieve their ends. They may fight to the bitter end, but 95% will stop bothering if they lose early in the process and learn to live with wind farms without complaints. If NIMBYism is their primary motivation, they are usually reasonable people and amenable to having conversations. And of course the nice thing about true NIMBYs is that as soon as the specific local battle that concerns them is won or lost, they will generally lose interest and stop spreading disinformation.Image courtesy of Wind woes recountedExamples of the more dangerous NIMBYs in the wind energy space include: Robert McMurtry (Ontario), Peter Mitchell (Australia), Kevin Elwood (Ontario) Michael Dickinson (Ontario) and Chuck Magwood (Ontario), Carmen Krogh (Ontario, retired Pharmacist and now a "wind health researcher")2. True believerTrue believers are people who have decided that wind turbines and other renewables truly are useless and harmful. They will believe anything which supports their world view and disbelieve anything which disagrees with it. They believe all of the negative health and wildlife impacts, and don't believe the positive AGW avoidance and power generation values. They are usually the shock troops of anti-wind movements but many sensible people find them offputting due to their lack of reasonableness. True believers cannot be usefully engaged. They will often make the surreal claim that they are for wind energy despite the massive negative disinformation campaigns specific to wind energy they engage in.Image courtesy of Page on www.lolwall.coThe more intelligent among them will create more and more elaborate refutations and alternative hypotheses supporting their world-view. These are complete time sucks and not worth refuting in detail except as an intellectual exercise.The less intelligent will throw out unreferenced facts that they believe support their claims. They will often claim that pro-wind people are heartless because they are ignoring health and environmental impacts. They will usually switch to another argument without acknowledging that they are changing the subject. As claims are refuted, they will become increasingly likely to attack experts' credibility and the 'hidden' motivations of those they are speaking to.Examples of anti-wind True Believers: Sarah Laurie (Australia), Jane Wilson (Ontario), Eric Rosenbloom (National Wind Watch, Vermont), Wayne Gulden (US and Ontario), the Wrightman clan (Ontario), various pseudonymous online types (Valewood, myview1872, rucio, cowcharge, vindpust), George Papadopoulos (Australia), Lorrie Gillis (Ontario), David Norman (aka Rogue Primate of Bloomfield believe it or not, Ontario), Shellie Correia (aka 1957chevShellie Correia, Hamilton, Ontario)3. Fossil Fuel ProfiteersThese people are amorally pragmatic. They are likely executing strategies related to AGW-denial as well. They will spread fear, uncertainty and doubt of any kind to advance their cause. Typically these are the most sophisticated at PR. They cannot be usefully engaged because their goals are solely spin and PR aimed at preserving their bottom line. They take advantage of true believers mercilessly.Image courtesy Jeff StahlerIf countered, they will follow one or more of the following tactics:Shift PR focus to another delaying argument.Buy an expert to testify on their behalf.Support more astroturf organizations.Fund studies and research that 'prove' failure of wind and renewables and promote them heavily.Attack the credibility of opponents, possibly by funding background investigations.Examples: Heartland institute (USA), Gina Rinehart (Australia), Koch Brothers (USA), Lisa Linowes (Industrial Wind Action Group, USA), Rick Coates (Ontario)4. LibertarianThese people are economic ideologues who believe that any market distortion is necessarily bad. If pressed, they will agree that fossil fuel subsidies must go, but then will return to 'green subsidies' as the primary problem. They often have no qualms about massive exaggerations and other means in aid of their ends. They can be engaged, but only on subjects other than market distortions such as health, capacity factors etc, but they will return the subject to FIT, PTC, RET, etc rapidly.Image courtesy of CARTOON/COLUMN: The myopic selfishness of libertariansIf countered, they are likely to drag out more and more factoids about negative impacts of market distortions. Solyndra will be mentioned in the USA even though it is irrelevant. Poke them hard enough and they are likely to reference Ayn Rand in positive terms.Examples: Robert Bryce (USA), James Delingpole (UK), Kevon Martis (USA), Tom Adams (Canada)5. Nuclear AdvocatesThese people may or may not believe that global warming is real, but they are invested heavily in nuclear energy as the answer to almost all of our energy needs and often have a poor understanding of grid management. They tend to be smart but ignore human dynamics of problems, and have a blind spot about the effort and time required to develop nuclear engineers and maintenance workers. Their greatest challenge to renewables campaigns is that their arguments are leveraged by others who are just against wind energy. Nuclear advocates are frequently zero-sum game thinkers, but do present the best opportunity for useful discussions of balance between low-CO2e, low health impact energy sources. Some leading lights in the environmental movement are in this camp, sadly, without understanding that their efforts will not lead to social license for nuclear and that their efforts are solely being used to delay moving off of fossil fuels.Image courtesy of IEA Report Advises Governments to Embrace Renewables and NuclearIf countered, the average nuclear advocate will drag out more and more factoids about nuclear energy's value and wind power's lack of value. They will likely reference amateur and professional studies which look good until you dig in and realize the biases. Generally a time suck, so avoid digging into their arguments in too much depth.Examples: Willem Post (USA), James Lovelock (sadly, UK), Barry Brook (Australia), Eric Jelinski (Ontario),6. Anthropogenic Global Warming DenierThese people for their own reasons ignore the scientific consensus around global warming and man's contribution to it. They tend to focus on carbon reduction aspects of renewables to exclusion of other factors and deny the value proposition on that measure alone. While the majority of mainstream religions embrace the science of global warming and consider stewardship of our earth an important element, it's worth noting that there is a small subset of evangelical Christians who believe and preach the opposite; unfortunately it appears as if Canada's Prime Minister Harper is among them.Image courtesy of Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie ChartThis is another area where the behaviour of the intelligent varies from the less intelligent in the crowd. The smarter ones will throw out more and more spurious studies and factoids. They'll point to very narrowly cherry-picked time series ignoring larger times series. They'll pretend that there isn't a scientific consensus. The less intelligent, of course, will get belligerent and hostile.Examples (I recommend following the link as in many cases the references are fascinating in the depth of connections with the fossil fuels industry): Tory Aardvark (USA), Lord Monckton (UK and increasingly WW with his swastika-laden slide deck), Steve Milloy (Fox News, Junk Science, USA), Pat Michaels (Cato Institute, USA), Sen James Inhofe (Republican, USA), Christopher Booker (Sunday Telegraph, UK)7. Misguided EnvironmentalistsPretty much every major bird, wildlife and environmental organization in the world - Audobon, David Suzuki Foundation, United Nations Environment Program, World Nature Organization, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Birdlife International, Royal Society for Protection of Birds, Greenpeace, American Bird Conservancy -- is strongly supportive of wind energy. They recognize that global warming and fossil fuel pollution and habitat destruction are the major population concerns for wildlife. They engage productively around broader scale guidelines for wind farm siting and in specific siting tribunals where endangered species are potentially at risk to minimize potential harm to species at risk.That said, there are a subset of environmentalists who can't see the forest for the trees, for whom any animal's or bird's death is one too many. Windfarms visibly harm birds that they can see, therefore wind farms must be stopped. They are short-sighted and have a very limited perspective, and their inability to gain perspective means that they typically believe a lot of other a-factual disinformation about wind energy as well, as they don't have the capability or will to assess the evidence. It's quite likely that many of them simply don't care about the quality of anti-wind arguments, as they merely want evidence for their shotguns. The list of major, credible and dedicated organizations supporting wind energy makes it clear that this small subset are very much a tiny minority of environmentalists.Because they are often motivated by deep emotional connections to animals, the majority of these people are completely impervious to reason and referenced arguments.Examples: Jim Wiegand (California, STEI), Mark Duchamp (Europe, STEI), Chris Clarke (journalist / naturalist who will publish any story about negative impacts of renewables on wild life, but none of the balancing stories), Henri Garand (Ontario)8. Armchair economistsThis group of people tend to overlap with Libertarians and pro-nuclear advocates, but have a distinct core. They believe, despite the clear evidence of 250,000 wind turbines generating electricity today, each worth on average $3 million USD to manufacture and erect, each requiring a business case that had to satisfy a great swath of private sector Chief Financial Officers, that they somehow have a magic formula which proves wind energy isn't economically viable in reality. Typically, they have little to no formal training in economics, but come to it from other disciplines, often engineering and physics for some reason.In general, there's a greater congregation in Europe, where Libertarian ideology is not as strongly expressed.Examples: C le Pair (Holland), more TBD9. OpportunistsThis category of people see a brass ring. They look for ways to capitalize on the conflict for personal gain. They are in the minority, but some have gained prominence. There are two categories of opportunists, the short-term gain con artist and the long-term opportunists.Image courtesy of Myron the Opportunist « Federal JackShort cons include attempting to claim that tar paper shacks with mold problems have been made uninhabitable by wind farm noise, or attempting to extort money out of wind farm developers or leaseholders to avoid 'problems'. (Both of these are documented behaviours near wind farms, but once again, this is not common nor should it be assumed that anyone claiming issues is an opportunist.)Long-term gain opportunists include a subset of anti-wind energy politicians and 'professionals' who are exploiting the concerned in return for consulting fees, noise studies and fees to testify at hearings. To repeat, a majority of politicians and professionals who are opposed to wind energy are sincere if misguided, but there is a strong subset who are content to exploit the fear and negativity for ongoing political or fiscal gain.Examples of long-term opportunists: Nina Pierpont (Wind Turbine Syndrome, USA), Senator Nick Xenophon (Australia), Carl V. Philips (epidemiologist, various locations), Vic Fedeli and Lisa Thompson (Ontario Opposition members of Parliament), John Laforet (politician wannabe, Ontario), Eric Gillespie (lawyer filing all sorts of spurious lawsuits in Ontario), David Mortimer (Australia, works fibreglass, survived Vietnam and regular firing of 4.5" naval guns, but blames wind turbines for health impacts), Neil Stollznow (PR flack, Australia), Rodd Pahl (PR flack, Australia), Stephen Ambrose (anti-wind testifying acoustician and author, USA), Peter Quinn (Australian lawyer), Tom Tanton (US AGW denier and front man)

Step 1: Make a list of your personal effects which you will a) be flying with; b) be shipping by container. For immigration (deals with the person) purposes you are an individual who is accepting Canada’s offer to permanently reside in Canada. For customs (deals with goods) purposes, you are a new resident of Canada. Since it is your intention to reside in Canada for more than 12 months, you will be entitled to bring in personal effects free of duty. For more information read this Tariff Item No. 9807.00.00. To speed up the process, I would highly recommend that you pre-fill this B4E form (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publi...)Step 2: Book and board a flight to CanadaStep 3: On arrival at the Customs hall, you will stand in the Visitor line. Like everyone on the plane you will fill in this E-311 form (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publi...). When you get to the front of the line, you will then meet a human official of Canada Border Services who is working at the Primary Inspection Line. Hand the officer your Canadian permanent residence paperwork, passport and E-311 Form. Indicate to the officer that you are moving to Canada for the first time and that you have some personal effects in your luggage and some that will be shipped later. The official will first refer you to the Secondary Immigration Inspection Area. They will do this by making an annotation on your E-311.After you walk away from this first officer, a second officer will look at your E-311, note the annotation and direct you to Immigration Secondary. There you will line up to meet an initial officer, who will read your E-311 and ask for your passport and permanent residence paperwork. If secondary is busy you will be asked to sit and wait for someone to call your name. Once you meet with the processing officer in immigration secondary, they will “land” you, which is the administrative process of becoming a permanent resident. They will also take your photo for the Permanent Resident Card which will be created later. This card will be mailed to you in about 6 weeks. If you do not have a Canadian mailing address at the time of landing, you will need to provide one online later (TI am a new permanent resident of Canada. Do I need to apply for a permanent resident card?) . They will then release you to retrieve your baggage.After you recover your luggage but before you leave the secured area, another officer will look at your E-311 form and refer you to Customs Secondary. At secondary, they will review your pre-filled B4E form. They may or may not also check your luggage to determine if a) any contraband or b) confirm the items listed on your B4E as accompanying.Once you are finished with secondary, you will then be directed out of the secured area and into the airport proper. IOW: Canada!Step 4: Ship your goods: Assuming that you will send a container with some personal effects, then you will need to deal with this customs documentation. Depending on your port of arrival and where you are shipping the goods, you will need to ‘clear these goods’ on arrival by following the instructions given either by your shipper or the Customs Secondary Officer.Step 5. After arrival secure basic new Canadian documentation: It varies from province to province but since you indicate a Toronto arrival, I will give you the example of the province of Ontario.a) Social Insurance Number: This is the basic Federal taxpayer identification number and can be obtained on-line or at an office (Applying for your Social Insurance Number... Fast, simple, secure!). Note: When Canadians talk about a “SIN card”, they are referring to this document, not a scorecard of spiritual transgressions.b) Provincial health insurance: You are entitled to national health coverage, which is administered by each province. Here is the process for Ontario (Ontario Health Insurance (OHIP). Note that there is a 3 month waiting period for new residents of Ontario before coverage starts so make sure you continue your current insurance or obtain travel insurance to cover this three month period (Travel Insurance for Visitors to Canada);c) Driver’s Licence: This is a bit more complicated depending on whether you are coming from one of the countries which has automatic transfer rights with Ontario. Read this information carefully and secure the proper records before leaving for Canada (Foreign Licence Experience Credits;d) Bank Accounts and Credit Cards: As a new resident of Canada, you will have no banking history or credit rating. Therefore I would highly recommend that you open an account with HSBC and obtain a credit card from them. You will then have a) a debit and credit card that you can use in Canada without incurring heavy wire transfer fees; and b) an opening for a relationship with a Canadian Bank that will make it easier for you to open a Canadian bank account and credit card as HSBC Canada will work with HSBC . You can later choose another Canadian bank, but this is a great starting point.e) Prescription Medicines: With regards to medicines, depending on the province that you will be settling in, you could be waiting up to 3 months before being entitled to provincial health coverage. (Google “Destination Province” “medical insurance plan” for exact period). You should arrange to have travellers medical insurance to cover from your arrival until provincial coverage kicks in. Effectively, this means that you will not have a General Practitioner Doctor who can prescribe medicines for you. Therefore along with bringing a copy of your existing medical record and prescriptions, you should bring enough medicine to cover from your arrival until a month after the provincial medical insurance kicks in. Be prepared to explain this abundance of medicines with copies of your prescriptions and medical information upon landing.