Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 25th, 2014

[A voice]

I would—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

She can go, but she's using your time, if you wish.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Then she can go some other time, because I don't have much time.

Thank you very much to all of you for being here and for all the work you do.

I'd like to start on the question of language tests for spouses.

More than 30 years ago, I married a woman from Malaysia, and I would have been shocked if the government of the day had said that in order for this woman to be my wife she had to pass a language test or an education test, or any other kind of test other than age and non-criminality. It would have struck me as Orwellian 1984-ish and definitely not the role of a government.

Ms. Douglas was very clear on this point. I just want to ask the other two witnesses, without going into it at great length, whether you agree or disagree with the language tests for spouses.

[Queenie Choo]

We concur with Ms. Douglas' point with regard to the language requirement.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

What about you, Ms. Belhassen?

[Amel Belhassen]

I agree as well. They need to have some knowledge of one of the two languages of the country where they will be living.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

You don't agree with the others, then. You think spouses should have to pass the language test.

[Amel Belhassen]

It shouldn't be a condition of sponsorship. Under the new rules, their being sponsored depends on their ability to speak one of the two languages and their having job skills. Theoretically speaking, knowing the language is important, but it shouldn't be a condition of sponsorship.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So it shouldn't be a condition, is that correct?

[Amel Belhassen]

Precisely.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So you do agree that the language test should not be a condition, right? Okay.

My second question is on the issue of this two-year conditional living together rule. Madam Belhassen was very clear that she was opposed to that because she didn't think it helped with the violence problems, and so on.

I'd just like to ask the other two whether they are for or against this conditional two-year living together rule.

[Debbie Douglas]

I appeared before this committee and I found opportunities when appearing before this committee to raise the whole issue of that regulation. We are on the public record as being against having a two-year conditionality imposed on sponsorship.

I didn't get to it in my remarks. We believe that—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. I'm sorry, but I don't have much time and I have another issue.

Ms. Choo.

[Queenie Choo]

My example actually illustrates the fact that it might not be helpful in those abusive situations under those conditions.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you. We have unanimity on those two points.

I have a third, more positive point. I really like the idea because I think it is practically reasonable to speed up the legal process for abused mothers so they can stay here longer, so they are able to stay here without huge delays. One of you proposed that.

I'd like to ask, in my final question, whether the other two would also agree that it is a good, practical proposal. It struck me very positively.

[Debbie Douglas]

Yes, it makes sense to have women stay in Canada with their children as opposed to having the children separated from their mothers because their fathers happen to be Canadian, as was presented here.

[Amel Belhassen]

I agree and support that proposal. It's important that they stay here with their children.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we have unanimity on the three points.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Choo, I am very curious about your first example, the case study you gave. I will allow you perhaps two minutes to share with us your second example. I will leave the remainder of the time for questions.

[Queenie Choo]

The second example is an Arabic-speaking client who was sponsored by her husband. When she came, she was psychologically abused by her husband by the fact that her husband lied to her about his living conditions in Canada. He told his wife that he was living in very nice conditions. He was not. He was living in a very small apartment, and also had a seasonal labour job; so it was to the contrary.

There was also the fact that she was under his scrutiny and not able to go outside to work. She was not permitted to communicate with others and make friends. She was very much socially isolated and very much under that psychologically abusive situation. The marriage didn't turn out right. She certainly wanted to go back to her own country of origin.

However, he would threaten her and say that if she went back, the sponsorship would be terminated. She was under a lot of psychological threat and material threat as well. She became ill. She was deprived of medical treatment because her husband refused to pay for the costs.

I'll just summarize. In view of all this, she decided to leave him because she understood.... She was well educated, so she was able to speak the language. However, she still needed help in terms of getting her rights identified and known. She did leave her husband. She did leave the marriage that she came to Canada for.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I gather from all three of your previous testimonies that you indicated it was important to provide information to prospective spouses before they entered the country to know what our laws are and where they could get help.

At the same time, I also see the point that government should not dictate whether knowing a language should be a requirement for a person to get married. Given that information, how can we deliver the information to these prospective spouses, whether they're illiterate in their own language, or whether they lack English or French, on how to get help and what their rights are? I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

[Queenie Choo]

In fact, this example speaks to the importance of pre-arrival information. They need to understand what the Canadian system is in terms of their relationship, what they can do in those abusive situations, how they can get help, and what legal assistance they would be able to access.

That even speaks to the need of those individuals before they come. Not only the women but also equally important, before this arrangement, the husbands also need to get the same information so that they can agree upon those situations and agreements before they get their sponsor spouse approval.

It is very important in terms of the pre-arrival information. Many of them, if they had the basic language skill, would be better off. However, there are many of them who don't even have that. That is so important to identify when you see the two case study scenarios.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Douglas, would you care to comment on that, please.

[Debbie Douglas]

I think it speaks to the need for information about the existence of services.

Here in Canada we probably have one of the most sophisticated settlement and integration service sectors. Globally we certainly know that because we have lots of visitors from across the world coming in to take a look at our system, and yet, there are many newcomers who don't know about it. One of our own researchers, in “Making Ontario Home”, talked about upwards of 30% not using services because they weren't aware of them. So, pre-arrival information before they come, on arrival information in terms of letting folks know what services exist, where they are in their community, and the kinds of supports that they can get when they need it....