How I love thee, let me count the pixels!

When I was a child, one of the weekly shows which I really enjoyed watching on our 15-inch b+w TV was Star Trek - the original, classic , wholesome and progressive Star Trek, with Captain James T Kirk (William Shatner) and First Officer Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the rest of the Enterprise crew. Sadly, I haven't seen the show in years now, however, when I do ever get the opportunity, I find that it is as enjoyable and entertaining as it was ages ago.

I remember being so impressed and awestruck with many of the technological advancements of that future era. (Isn't it a bit depressing though, that advancement and development in human character had not progressed at such a similar rate?!) Captain Kirk never budged anywhere without his 'communicator' and  Chief Medical Officer McCoy was able to rattle off a medical diagnosis but with the scan of his hand-held medical instrument. Did any of us ever grow tired of observing inter-galactic conferences being held on the communication monitor at the front of the bridge? How about Communications Officer Uhura opening contact with another Federation official? (I regret that I do not remember / know the technical terms of the Enterprise instruments mentioned above).

Well, forward 40 years and are we living Star Trek today or what?! Not 100%, but you get my gist. The 'communicator' = our cellphone. Heck, some phones today even flip open just like the 'communicator' did! Medical diagnostic scans? OK, ours are not yet hand-held (though they may be portable), but we sure have competent scanning technologies which assist medical teams in reaching a medical conclusion. Finally, equipped with webcams and associated paraphernalia, we can very well have voice and audio conversations with anyone from anywhere on the globe (or beyond for that matter).

I share this with you because I read a very interesting article in the Montreal Gazette last week ('Virtual visitations' becoming the norm in divorce settlements, by Misty Harris, 16 November 2010) regarding the growing prevalence of 'virtual visitations', i.e. in divorce settings,  non-custodial parents are communicating with their children via Skype; video chats and/or instant messaging.

Indeed, it might be worth reminding that when parents divorce each other, they don't divorce their children! No matter how mom and dad feel toward each other, the court always tries to ensure that the children maintain as much contact with both parents as is possible and as is the case. This would normally include planned visitation sessions and/or extended stays, so that while the children are not with both parents all the time, they get to at least spend some time with both parents (at different times, of course).
Sadly, in an ideal world, this would not be a solution. However, for whatever the reasons, broken families are a reality and as a society, we must do whatever we can to lessen the harsh impact of the child's new home environment, where both parents are no longer habitually resident.

With what would have been unthinkable years ago, parents  and courts are now turning to cutting-edge communication technologies to help bridge and fill newly-formed gaps in parent - child relationships. According to the newspaper article, computer-assisted communication is currently most often used when great distances separate parent and child and actual in-person contact is either not available or available only in a diminished capacity or not possible at all. Notwithstanding, Canadian courts presently do order it on a case-by-case basis and experts predict that it's just a matter of time before such arrangements becomes de rigeur in all cases.

Resorting to technology should not be flouted as the sure-all answer and accordingly, its use has not been allowed as of right in all cases. Not necessarily because there's a problem with the particular venue, but rather because in certain instances, the court was not prepared to buy into it as a substitute for in-person contact.
For example, a custodial parent may not unilaterally decide to  pick up and move away with the child, far from the non-custodial parent, effectively depriving the  latter of his/her ability to spend 'real time' with the child. Court approval would have to be accorded to the moving parent, in order to justify altering the other parent's rights and modifying the divorce agreement.

In another scenario, in a case in Kingston Ontario, the mother of a child was denied her request to move to New Zealand with her child, even though she had given assurances that she would facilitate regular webcam sessions between the girl and her father. The Ontario Superior Court ruled that due to the extreme time differences between the two locations, contact with her father could only be made at awkward hours and would thus make for a complicated and unrealistic schedule.

Ultimately, as in all cases involving children, the court looks to what is in 'the best interests of the child' and moves from that starting point in its decision-making.

I was wondering and hypothesizing how the use of 'virtual communication' could potentially be viewed by immigration officials in immigration matters. There are several instances where your 'being there' or physical presence is necessary to pass over a legal threshold. For example, when completing a spousal sponsorship application and claiming to have lived together 'common-law' for one year, could one make an argument that any periods of time physically spent apart should be overlooked, if the couple had always remained bonded via Skype? It's still speaking, it's seeing each other, it could be sharing a daily routine together - just not physically there. Would that count?

Or in the Spouse/Common-law Partner Questionnaire, where the sponsoree is asked to provide details about the development and growth of the relationship with the sponsor and how they came to be in that committed relationship. Would stating that one had engaged in an intense on-line relationship, would that be convincing and sufficient enough for a favourable opinion from the deciding immigration officer?

How about a virtual trip to Canada in lieu of an actual 'exploratory trip' in an immigration application?

And what about a employment position clinched on Skype or  Windows Messenger?
Finally, what if someone had hooked-up a 24-hour-a-day webcam connection to his/her family/school/place of work in Canada, would that satisfy the 'presence in Canada' requirements for Permanent Resident and/or Citizenship statuses? 

When I was a student in law school, part of our training consisted of preparing and pleading a fictitious case in a moot court [a make-believe court, presided by laypersons acting as judges]. In this exercise, a team of two students was paired against another team. Each side had to make a case for the plaintiff and defendant respectively. A date was fixed and the four students were set to plead their causes before the 'judges' - usually a law professor, a practicing lawyer and a third or fourth-year law student.

A professor once recounted this story: On one occasion, a student showed-up for his turn at the moot court dressed in his best workday clothes - jeans, coloured shirt, no tie, running shoes - looking generally dishevelled. When one of the  judges on the bench admonished him for appearing so, the student replied, that since this trial was anyway just in moot court and was therefore imaginary and pretend, could the judge just not imagine that the student was dressed in a much more respectable fashion? Without skipping a beat, the judge replied that he would be inclined to accept the student's suggestion, so long as the latter was also prepared to imagine - that he had received an 'A' as his grade!

Point is: sometimes, 'virtual' doesn't cut it! Sometimes, you just really really need the real thing.

I would think and hope that each case mentioned above, should be decided on its own merits, with common-sense as the guiding principle. To say that a couple cannot initiate and nourish an amorous relationship on-line is not to be living in the 21st century. Indeed, there are so many sites devoted to exactly this cause: helping people find loving relationships on-line. To deny this reality to would-be immigrants would be unjustifiable and unreasonable. Of course, people do have to get together to really know each other well, but Skype can go a long way in keeping those flames alive and going.

On the other hand, could a virtual trip by prospective immigrants truly replace a hands-on visit to our country? Really, there are great informative presentations of Canada on-line. It may even be possible to get more information by sitting in front of a computer or a television. But honestly, you can only get the complete feel for something when you are truly there, when you experience it in the raw with your senses. Feeling the cold / the heat / the snow / the sleet;  driving through neighbourhoods and breathing in its distinct flavours; visiting the premises of a possible employer and meeting with employees; hearing all the languages and shaking hands with people in the community where you plan to settle - all these things have to be experienced first-hand in person. No book or video can clue you into these experiences.
If you want to live here as a permanent resident or become a citizen of this great country, it's not enough to do it 'virtually'. You have to experience the real deal.
In closing, we really ought to embrace these technologies whenever we can, depending though on the context of the given situation. Skype & Friends have the potential to make our lives so much richer in human experiences "to seek out new life and...to go where no man has gone before" (so to speak!), but can never replace the true meeting and bonding of human spirits. 

Groundbreaking decision from Quebec Court of Appeal

Quebec Court of Appeal

A very interesting judgment came out of the Quebec Court of Appeal last week. Let me tell you about it.

In Canada, we live in a generally free society and people are allowed to do many things. One of the many freedoms which we have includes the choice of how and with whom we cohabit - whether to live single; get married; live together and not get married and so on.

National Assembly of QC

In Quebec, first in 1980 and then later again in 1989, legislators in the National Assembly of Quebec enacted legislation which granted financial protection for women in the event of a break-up of their marriage. In determining the scope of the application of these laws, lawmakers considered extending it to both married and unmarried couples, but ultimately settled on married couples alone. Thus, the Civil Code of Quebec contains laws providing benefits and protection to married persons, but these are not extended to those who choose to live together in an unmarried state, otherwise known as a 'common-law marriage'.

In practical and very simple terms, this means that upon the dissolution of a marriage, whether by divorce or death or otherwise, there is a possibility for  spousal support  (a.k.a. alimony) and that the matrimonial property is split according to a certain formula, in order to provide (hopefully) a fair division and distribution of the estate to both parties.

Common-law couples, on the other hand, have never received any such safeguards. When they split-up, there is no similar (required) division or distribution. Generally speaking, each go their own way.

It is important to note that children born from married couples, common-law couples or from two persons not cohabiting together at all, should always receive aid from both parents, as the case may be. This financial allotment is based on the child-parent relationship - the marital status of the parents being irrelevant.

La Belle Province of Quebec, until last week, was the only province in Canada that made a distinction between marrieds and common-law'ers, at least with regard to spousal support. In the rest of Canada, recognition of  the common-law status has long been the norm. Usually, this means that if a couple has been living together for a minimum of 3 years or alternatively one year with a child from their union, they were subject to the rules of alimony upon the break-up of their relationship. With the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal, this division has now been bridged somewhat.

Let me tell you about the facts of the case. 

I think that the details of this story have  been sensationalized, which is a shame, because that distracts from the true issues at hand. A 34-year-old billionaire man - nicknamed 'Eric' - met a 17-year-old girl - 'Lola' - in Brazil. She moved back with him to Montreal. They moved in together and had 3 children. Apparently, she wanted to get married, but he said that he didn't believe in the institution of marriage and they never married. After 10 years of being together, they decided to part ways.

Since their split, 'Eric' has taken very good care (financially-wise) of their children, to the tune of $35,000 per month (you read that right - that's no printing mistake!). Mother and children  currently live in a cool $2.5 million house in a very tony district of town.

Lola would like a chunk of her ex's money. She went before  a Quebec Superior Court and asked the judge to grant her a $50 million lump-sum payment plus $56,000 per month as an alimony payment. (As mentioned above, spousal support and child support are two distinct matters).

In her situation, she felt that she was being discriminated against due to her marital status, or more precisely, her lack thereof. She decided to challenge those provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec which differentiate between married and unmarried couples. She based her arguments on our constitution, the supreme law of the land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, declaring that she was guaranteed the right to equal benefits and equal protection of the law, without discrimination. She asked the court to declare those Civil Code provisions unconstitutional.

Contrary to what may be commonly perceived, a judge cannot change or re-write the law. If it is not perfectly clear, then she can interpret the law. Or, she can also declare a law to be unconstitutional i.e. that it does not jive with the supreme law of the land.

In our case, the trial judge stated that the suggested discrimination was not apparent and consequently, there were no grounds for striking down the law. Lola's claim was thus denied.

Lola went to appeal. At the appeal level, the court ruled that the law as it stands now is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. The court was not prepared to pronounce  that she  be awarded a portion of the family patrimony, but concluded that she should be entitled to receive spousal support.
This ruling has the potential to have an incredible impact on Quebec society. There are lots of common-law couples here and now that there is a possibility of having these relationships look and behave more like marriages,  participants will have to be more aware and conscious of their decision to enter into such a state. For sure, many common-law relationships are of the long-term committed type; but there are also many 'shacking-up' common-law relationships too. All of these may soon be touched by new legislation. Family law as we know it will be changed forever.
The Quebec government must now decide whether to send its legislators back to the drawing board and make the law right or whether to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm not quite sure about how I feel about this judgment! On the one hand, when these laws were originally brought into force in the 1980's, couples were overwhelmingly married, as opposed to living common-law. Thus, the laws ensured that the majority of unions was well covered by the progressive legislation.
Forward 20+ years and Quebec is now the common-law capital of Canada (and North America)! A whopping 35% of couples now live in couple-hood outside matrimonial bliss and 60% of children now born in Quebec are born to these relations. That's 6 out of every 10 children born! If the law's intention was to protect women exiting from a 'loving' relationship, i.e. a married one, can there be any justification today in ignoring the approximately 3.5 women (out of 10) of  the common-law ilk, who may be left impoverished if suddenly found single?
On the other hand, who's to say which proportion of these common-law couples actually chose to be in an unregulated common-law setting! Perhaps it was a very clear, purposeful and obvious choice for them to remain in the common-law arena and specifically not to venture into the married side. I am sure that anyone would be willing to bet a dollar, that everybody  today knows of this creature called 'marriage' (or civil union) and those who do stay clear of it, know perfectly well what they are doing! The fact is: getting married brings its own baggage and maybe maybe some just couldn't be bothered and/or wish to avoid it altogether.

What's the connection to this immigration blog? Well, for starters, I thought that this all was interesting enough to share! Perhaps persons living in far-away lands with cultures and lifestyles very different from our own, can have a better understanding and appreciation of our familial and social environments.
Furthermore, anyone reading this post, contemplating coming to Canada, might well remember and be forewarned of the possible implications of his/her relationships once arriving here.
Finally, there is an incidental connection to immigration. Spousal sponsorship applications includes those living  in married and in common-law relationships. Potential immigrants already have enough to worry about and hopefully the information provided above will give them a better and clearer insight of the intricacies of Canadian family styles.

(The photo file of the Quebec Court of Appeal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license and is free to share with attribution.
Attribution for the photo of the National Assembly of Quebec: By dszpiro on Flickr [CC-BY-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons).

Changes to the Federal Skilled Worker program

You know the expression: 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'? No matter how you act, someone will sure enough turn up with a negative comment about what's going on. I really believe that this dictum is so true and can readily apply to most or all situations.

Please read my comments below and consider the author's opinion.

Turn on your radio, turn to your favourite news talk-show and for years you will have heard much debate about our immigration system and the kind of immigrants coming to Canada. Ranting like 'Why do we need more university-educated workers coming to Canada?' 'Why aren't we getting more labourers to help us here with our shortages?' 'There are so many [you put in the name of the practitioner] who come to Canada and drive taxis!' There was and still is no lack of couch-chair political commentators willing to offer their wise suggestions and wisdom on how the immigration system could and should be run, in a more productive and proficient manner.

And to be frank, maybe just maybe some of these folks had some valid points. Who hasn't heard the nightmarish stories of the foreign highly-trained professionals who immigrate to Canada, can't find a job in their chosen career field and sadly end up working in a totally different profession?! Why not be honest about it all and tell prospective immigrants upfront that we are looking for a certain type of immigrant with these specific credentials? Trust me, it would save a lot of heartache! And the clincher is that if someone still  truly and sincerely wants to come to Canada, he can get the desired training in order to fit into one of those 29 areas. (True, some still require a healthy university training; but some do not.) Ultimately, it really is ok if the government changes its criteria from time-to-time in order to adjust to new realities and situations. A more transparent system, from both the government's and the potential immigrant's points-of-view would allow applicants to proceed with more  focus, certainty and empowerment.

Well, it appears that the Minister has listened to these calls! During this past summer, the Federal Skilled Worker program underwent an overhaul. Generally speaking, effective 26 June last, a person applying under this program must submit the results of his language test and a) have an 'arranged employment' i.e. an employer offering a job; or b) have at least one year of experience in the previous 10 years in the list of 29 professions provided by the government. The maximum number of applicants to be accepted for processing under this program (which does not include 'arranged employment') is set at 20,000 per year, with a cap of 1,000 applications within each occupation category. As of 29 October last when the government released its most recent figures, 2,988  applications (out of 20,000) have been received; the largest groups are 900 in the ' Professional Occupations in Business Services to Management' category and 405 in 'Registered Nurses' category.

Now at least, prospective immigrants may have a better shot of knowing what's really in demand and finding a job when they arrive in Canada.

So what's a bloke to do if his profession is not on the list? Some thinking / strategizing is required. There are other options, like applying through Quebec's system (get a life - just learn some French!). Or trying through the available Provincial Nomination programs or other federal programs.

Changes?? Can be a drag, but isn't everything in life a 'work-in-progress'?