Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon. I call the committee to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the strengthening of the protection of women in our immigration system. This meeting is televised. We have three witnesses before us today.

We have Debbie Douglas, who is the executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. Good afternoon to you, Ms. Douglas.

We have Queenie Choo, who is the chief executive officer of S.U.C.C.E.S.S., and we have Amel Belhassen, who is the representative of the women's file. Good afternoon to you.

We will let you go first, Ms. Belhassen. You have up to eight minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

[Amel Belhassen, representative, Women's file, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, thank you. I am delighted to be here. This is my first time appearing before a committee. Since I don't have a lot of time, I will speak directly to the issue.

I am from Montreal and I represent the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes as well as the Réseau d'action pour l'égalité des femmes immigrées et racisées du Québec. Professionally, I teach the sociology of immigration at UQAM, so I'm a sociologist by trade.

I'd like to discuss two things today. The first has to do with the status of being an immigrant and the consequences of some precarious status-related issues on the living conditions of immigrant women. The second issue is also tied to status and concerns the economic uncertainty of immigrant and racialized women.

I will now discuss the first issue, the consequences of immigrant status, more specifically as they relate to sponsorship.

Before I begin, I should tell you that I also work on the front lines, and we are in contact with immigrant women. My remarks today are based on the experiences of women on the ground and on findings that have allowed us to give immigrant women a voice. This is the reality on the ground.

In October 2012, the federal government announced the introduction of a two-year conditional permanent residence period for certain sponsored spouses. Following that announcement, we realized that, as a result of the new immigration rule, the sponsored spouses in question could face deportation if they did not live with their spouse for the full two years of the conditional permanent residence period.

In the view of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes and Réseau d'action pour l'égalité des femmes immigrées et racisées du Québec, implementing a conditional permanent residence period is a step backward in Canada's immigration policy. It exacerbates inequalities in marriage relationships and makes women, in particular, more vulnerable to violence, despite the exception for spouses who are victims of abuse.

The new measure diminishes women's safety and, above all, significantly empowers the guarantor. The guarantor would have the ability to pressure the woman into doing whatever he wants, by threatening the sponsored spouse with the possibility of losing her permanent residence status at any time.

It is our view that this new rule also represents a step backward for all Canadian women and immigrant women, who are already overrepresented in the most vulnerable immigrant groups. The new sexist measures are a direct attack on them.

Although an exception was set out for spouses suffering abuse or neglect, we believe that women cannot benefit from it. Many of them are not familiar enough with Canada's laws or, specifically, the exception tied to the conditional two-year period. It is our opinion that sponsored spouses suffering from abuse, especially women, will not be able to benefit from the exception owing to a number of barriers such as the lack of access to information, the inability to speak the language and social isolation.

A number of cultural factors come into play as well. Speaking out against domestic abuse is frowned upon in certain cultures. Something of a code of silence exists and it forces women to keep quiet, out of fear that they will be shunned or rejected by their family, among other things.

For example, an arranged marriage is a situation where a woman cannot speak up about domestic abuse. If she does, she runs the risk of facing some rather negative consequences. Last year, for that matter, we observed situations involving honour crimes and the like. A forced marriage is another example of a vulnerable situation for women.

Women do not report abuse for many reasons. It is also important that immigrant women have the right understanding and definition of abuse. Some equate abuse with physical violence, even though we all know abuse comes in many forms, physical, psychological, economic and so forth.

That is why we believe there are other ways to deter people from committing marriage fraud, one of the objectives underlying the new measures. Steps could be taken to verify the legitimacy of a marriage or union in the home country. Different approaches could be used to verify that.

Furthermore, it is no longer good enough to judge the guarantor by the information they, themselves, supply. It is necessary to meet with them and look them in the eye. That is the person who will be sponsoring the woman. Making a determination on the sponsor should not be limited to reviewing the information in their file.

A great deal of immigrant women don't know the laws or even what it means to be sponsored. They should perhaps be advised in their home countries of the various issues related to being an immigrant and, especially, the sponsorship mechanism. In some countries, Canadian embassies frequently offer information sessions on Canada and Quebec to successful immigration applicants. It would be very beneficial to organize similar information sessions on Canada's immigration laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have one minute to wind up, Ms. Belhassen.

[Amel Belhassen]

My second point concerns new measures in effect related to sponsorship. The spouse being sponsored will be required to speak English or French and to have job skills. The spouse also has to have a minimum level of income to be a sponsor. We believe measures of this nature hinder permanent residence under the family class. When a woman marries a husband, she marries a country. Usually women who are sponsored by their spouses do not choose to immigrate; they are following their husbands to another country. We do not see the point of requiring them to have job skills, given that people here are already struggling because their skills aren't recognized.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Choo, you are next, for eight minutes, please.

[Queenie Choo, Chief Executive Officer, S.U.C.C.E.S.S.]

Thank you very much.

Violence against women happens in all cultures and religions, in all ethnic and racial communities, at every age, in every income group. Immigrant women under the spousal sponsorship program are more vulnerable to abuses or domestic violence due to the sheer nature of the power imbalance in the relationship between them and their sponsor partners. This is compounded by their economic dependence, conceivable language and cultural barriers, controlling attitudes, threats by their sponsor partners who keep them deliberately isolated from the outside world, withholding their passports and immigration documents, for example.

A woman's fear of her children's safety and welfare as well as her uncertainty of her PR status will keep her continuing in an abusive relationship. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of her legal rights, community, and protective support services adds a further complication and challenge for her.

Refugees who arrive in Canada traumatized by war or oppressive governments are much less likely to report physical or sexual violence to the authorities for fear of further victimization, or even deportation. There are also cases where sponsored immigrant women are abused by extended family members of the sponsor partner.

Breaking the cycle of domestic abuse and violence is very difficult and challenging. Helping the sponsored immigrant woman to decide to walk away from the battered relationship with all the odds against her has proven to be very challenging and complicated as well.

It is important that we recognize there are some systems in place. Canada has well-intended laws to protect abused women and immigration policies to guard against sponsorship frauds; however, the application of these rules has sometimes created unintended barriers for immigrant women in abusive and domestic violence relationships. For example, as soon as the sponsor partner terminates the sponsorship when the immigrant woman leaves the marriage or tries to leave an abusive relationship, she loses her legal status to stay in Canada.

Settlement agencies and transitional house providers are seeing an increasing number of mothers without legal status across the country. There are cases where sponsorship applications are incomplete or the process has not even started and the woman's status has expired. Given that their children's primary residence is in Canada, they cannot leave the country to return to their own country of origin with their children without consent from their ex-partner. This means they must stay in Canada without status.

Our legal system, as a result, would not grant much favour to the mothers without legal status application for child custody or access decisions. Taking the child out of the country or away from an abusive partner would make the mother without legal status run the risk of being accused of child abduction. Even in situations where the children can stay with her under a protection order in a transition house, the father's access to the children in a neutral place, like a transition house, sometimes leads to violence. The women usually have no means to get a trustworthy third person to take the children to a place to enable the father's access to the children.

The YWCA has launched a national campaign requesting CIC to expedite the first stage approval of the legal status for mothers without legal status, or immigrant women leaving spousal abusive relationships who apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds as they are living in danger. We, S.U.C.C.E.S.S., agree that this is one critical solution that opens doors to improve both the short-term and long-term livelihood of these immigrant women; however, the success rates for these applications are usually low and the whole process to receive legal status, ranging from two to three years, remains too long. Help is not happening soon enough for these immigrant women in crisis. We would like Parliament to strengthen and speed up the legal status issue for these sponsored immigrant women who find themselves in abusive relationships with their spouse.

From another angle, from the perpetrator's side, we agree that the abusive sponsor partner should carry their share of responsibility and punitive consequence of their doings.

The issue is the perpetrators have to see that they are the problem, not their spousal partner. The problem stops with the abuser. It is more practical to really make the perpetrators pay or owe the government for the costs of all the supportive government and social services to help the immigrant women leaving an abusive sponsorship relationship to rebuild their lives and the welfare of their children to economic independence. The government can even make this a condition in the spousal sponsorship application in the event of a spousal sponsorship breakdown in any abusive and also violent situation.

Beyond support services and legal protection for the abused women, it is important to look at the safety and custody of children, crisis intervention by transition houses, continued legal aid services and legal education, medical health services, mental health services, counselling support services, both long-term and short-term affordable housing, settlement services, access to education and language skill training, income assistance, child care services, bridging services for immigrant women—there are too many to mention in here.

I am pleased to learn that currently there are tools being developed by the BC Society of Transition Houses and the AMSSA, Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC, which is an umbrella organization for all settlement services. These will be distributed by the B.C. government ministry to train and assist settlement practitioners in a sector to become more sensitized to the issue, and to know how to address it and refer people to the appropriate resources.

Let me conclude by citing for you two real cases encountered by our agency's front-line settlement workers:

In case one, an immigrant wife from China sponsored by her spouse had been verbally abused since the beginning of the marriage. He set strict rules in the house and if she didn't do things his way, he was verbally abusive to her. She thought that he was the breadwinner and worked hard outside and that she should be able to put up with him. Later she got sick and found out she had cancer. After that the situation became worse. Even after her chemotherapy, her treatment for cancer, when she was still very weak, she had to cook for him and clean the house.

Her parents came to visit from China to help her. They found out their daughter was abused and called the police many times when the abuse increased. But due to the language barrier, the parents of our client could not explain well to the police, and yet the husband, the abuser, who could speak English always told the police, “These are family arguments, no big deal.” So the police left without any actions.

Some of the wife's friends offered help, but the husband refused most of the time. He said taking care of her was his responsibility and if she got help from outside, that meant he hadn't done a good enough job. Friends could only come to her place when the husband was working.

With other people's help, her parents informed the Ministry of Children and Family Development that the spouse beat up their three-year-old son. The ministry sent a social worker for a home visit, but again no further action was taken. Social workers in the hospital were aware of her situation. With their help she was moved to a shelter for a couple of days, but was forced to leave because the shelter could not take care of a sick person like her.

Her parents tried to draw media attention for help, but the story was published by one Chinese newspaper—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to move on soon, Ms. Choo. I'm sorry. You're a minute over already.

[Queenie Choo]

Okay.

Then she passed away at the age of 30. She did not get the help she needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. It's an important story, but we have to move on.

Ms. Douglas, it's your turn. Thank you for coming.

[Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

Thank you.

Thank you for that story, Queenie. I think it underscores how front-line workers are dealing with these issues on a daily basis.

Thank you for this opportunity. I'm from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, OCASI. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the study undertaken by this committee on strengthening protection of women in our immigration system.

OCASI is the umbrella organization for Ontario's immigrant and refugee serving sector, with more than 230 agencies across the province. A number of my member agencies provide a range of violence prevention, emergency housing for abused women, immigration support, health care, employment and skills training, among other services. You have heard from some of them and will hear in the coming weeks particularly from organizations such as the South Asian Women's Centre and the Afghan Women's Organization. We are very pleased that the work being done in Ontario will be coming to you along with our concerns.

OCASI has appeared as a witness on numerous occasions before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as well as before other parliamentary and Senate committees to share our expertise and experience on issues that impact upon immigrants and refugees.

We have also had the opportunity to contribute to this and other committees' studies of proposed and existing legislation through written submissions. I must apologize that you do not have my presentation for today in front of you.

In the few minutes that I have, I would like to offer some thoughts on two issues: on the proposal to impose an education and skills requirement as well as a language requirement for spousal sponsorship as a violence prevention measure; and on the two-year conditional permanent residency that both of my colleagues have also spoken about.

First, let me deal with the proposed requirements.

Distressingly, violence against women in Canada is a very real phenomenon, and it's a phenomenon that cuts across race, ethnicity, economic and social class, ability, and age. The one unifying truth, I think it's fair to say, is that violence against women is a function of patriarchy.

In its report, the Canadian Women's Foundation said that half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16, and that 67% of Canadians say they personally know at least one woman who has been sexually or physically assaulted.

OCASI has heard from our front-line practitioners in the immigrant and refugee serving sector that in their experience spousal violence is significantly under-reported.

The 2009 StatsCan study “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile” noted, “Disclosing spousal violence can be difficult for many victims”, and “not all incidents are reported to the police”; that “fewer than 3 in 10...victims of spousal violence reported the abuse to the police”. The study noted, “Other forms of spousal abuse, such as emotional, psychological or financial abuse...are not offences chargeable under the Criminal Code and...are not included in this analysis”.

As I said earlier, violence against women can occur in all communities, regardless of culture, religion, language, age, or ethnicity. It is not limited to low-income women, to unemployed women, to women with limited education, or to immigrant and refugee women.

Some women are at greater risk because of other factors, such as a lack of knowledge of their rights or their ability to pursue them, lack of access to services or resources, or because of racial and other forms of discrimination when they try to access protection or services.

The Canadian Women's Foundation further found:

Immigrant women may be more vulnerable to domestic violence due to economic dependence, language barriers, and a lack of knowledge about community resources. Newcomers who arrive in Canada traumatized by war or oppressive governments are much less likely to report physical or sexual violence to the authorities, for fear of further victimization or even deportation. Many racialized women face barriers to reporting incidents of physical or sexual assault or seeking help. “A study with young women of colour in Toronto found that one-in-five experienced racism in the health care system which included cultural insensitivity, racial slurs, and poor quality [of] care.”

That was particularly for young women of colour who had experienced sexual assault.

Let me state again that in spite of these findings, women are not more prone to violence or abuse because of a lack of education or a lack of labour market access.

A recent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report noted that 70% of Canadian women who report having experienced spousal violence are working women, and 71% have a university or college degree.

We are therefore very doubtful that imposing an education and skills requirement as well as a language requirement on a sponsor's spouse would do anything to address spousal violence and instead may become another factor that can contribute to the vulnerability of the sponsored spouse.

At present, the only requirement for marriage in most Canadian provinces and territories is an age limit, which is meant to ensure protection for minors. I want to add here that we support the proposal that is on the table to increase the age of spousal sponsorship from 16 to 18. The council absolutely welcomes that change.

We find it deeply troubling, however, that the Canadian government is now contemplating telling Canadians who they can and cannot marry by imposing language, education, and skills requirements. This is akin to the government acting as a marriage broker for Canadian spouses.

What will happen in the event that a Canadian has married overseas to a spouse who does not meet these requirements? Are they to live apart? Is the Canadian sponsor expected to divorce the spouse and find one more palatable to meet CIC requirements? While they might sound very far-fetched, these are the kinds of questions that arise when we look at imposing these kinds of requirements concerning who can be married and sponsored into our country.

Further, given that spousal violence and violence against women are issues that impact all Canadian women regardless of immigration status and place of birth, we are extremely puzzled at the proposal to address this very serious issue through an immigration lens. We believe that these proposals would not address the issue and would instead punish certain Canadians and certain immigrants.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than a minute, Ms. Douglas.

[Debbie Douglas]

The committee is also looking at the issue of forced marriage. I want to say that this is a very serious issue, giving cause for grave concern not only to this committee but to all departments federally, particularly Status of Women. You have heard from the witness from the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario who did her study on forced marriage that the research shows that forced marriage is an issue that impacts many Canadians and is not restricted to a particular geographic region or culture but is an issue that we must address as a nation.

Before I conclude, there are three or four key recommendations that we want to make that we believe will address the issues my colleagues have spoken on, especially around the two-year sponsorship, which I don't have time to speak to, as well as general issues of violence against women.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a problem, Ms. Douglas. You're at eight minutes and you're just getting to your summaries.

[Debbie Douglas]

May I have one minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, you have one minute.

[Debbie Douglas]

Thank you.

We need to invest in a national campaign to build awareness and education on preventing violence against women, including forced marriage. This would include investing in education for service providers broadly defined, who include those working with immigrants and refugees in shelters and housing, within the health care field, in law enforcement, in immigration, and in community and other social work.

We need to invest in services for women, including specialized services for aboriginal women, refugee and immigrant women, women with disabilities, and older women, so that we can support them in breaking out of isolation and in their movement to economic independence.

We need a national housing strategy that would include providing affordable housing as well as emergency and transition housing for all women who need it.

Last, we need a national child care strategy that would free up women to enter the labour market.

I look forward to our conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, the three of you, for your presentations.

Committee members will now have some questions.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you to all of our witnesses for the very insightful comments this afternoon.

I'm going to start by asking you a question, Ms. Choo.

In your organization, do you get requests for assistance from individuals who are forced into marriage? If you do, what steps do you tell them to take?

[Queenie Choo]

As an immigrant-serving organization, we offer the information that is available based on the immigration directions and rules to help them, because for many of those women language is a barrier. We help them to understand. We provide the tools that are available for them.

However, this is a very challenging and complicated issue in households. Many of them, when they return to their home, get back to their own situation again. It's a kind of self-perpetuating situation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Do you find that in those situations where they're facing forced marriage, they are aware of their rights with respect to moving forward and what they can do here in Canada?

[Queenie Choo]

I don't believe they all understand their rights and also their responsibilities of being in Canada. This is what we're trying to say: make sure through education sessions that we are able to help them understand what their rights are and what their responsibilities in Canada are.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

A previous witness to the committee, Chantal Desloges, mentioned that she believed the minimum age for those being sponsored should be raised from 16 to 18. Would you agree with that?

[Queenie Choo]

In terms of the age, as long as we make it reasonable, we make it less of a barrier to people, I think that would help the vulnerable women to get on with being economically independent.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Ms. Douglas, welcome back. Nice to see you again.

Some witnesses who have presented at our committee have discussed conditional permanent residence. We know that if women present evidence that they are in a forced or abusive marriage, the proposed condition would cease to apply in instances where there is evidence of such abuse or neglect.

What evidence can be used, in your opinion?

[Debbie Douglas]

That's the difficult thing in proving violence, outside of physical bruises, as well as if there are witnesses to the abuse.

What we have been told by our front-line practitioners who have been working with those women is that even when women somehow get that information and they attempt to get further information about the implications for their immigration status, many citizenship offices do not have that information, they're not aware of the exemption, so women are being given wrong and often contradictory information.

Exacerbating the problems is that the 1-800 number from CIC is often not answered by a person in real time, and so folks are not able to get the information they require so that they can be informed that, yes, if you are being abused you really can leave, that you will be exempted from the deportation order or the conditionality of the two years of not living together with your spouse. Hence, our push for education, not only of the sponsored spouse but also of those working in immigration and other service agencies so that women get accurate information in terms of the implications for their immigration status.