Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

Let me just touch on something that I believe all three of you, Ms. Herenda, Ms. Madawa, and Mr. Waldman, touched on, with regard to informing people before they come here of what the Canadian system is. I think, Ms. Herenda, you used the word “orientation” about our laws and rights here in Canada.

I think it's important. Quite frankly, we cannot just ignore the fact that marriages of convenience happen and will happen considerably if we eliminate the conditional PR. One of the things we could inform people about, for example, is the fact that right on the CIC website there's an operational bulletin that provides the exceptions for which the conditional PR is lifted on the abused individual. There's a whole slew of exceptions—for example, any kind of court document, protective orders, releases, bail orders, and that kind of stuff. Perhaps it's a little bit more advanced for people in that they may not be ready to run to lawyers and run to courts to disclose their abuse, but they can provide a letter of statement from a women's shelter or domestic abuse support organization.

Ms. Herenda, I'm keenly aware of the great work that Yellow Brick House does in York region. A letter of statement from a family services clinic, a letter of statement or a report from a medical doctor, a sworn statement, an affidavit from them or from a family member or a friend, photos, injuries, voice mails, emails—a whole slew of things can be used as very useful tools by a person who is being abused.

To Ms. Herenda, when a woman who has been abused comes to you, what advice do you give them about the next steps they can take before they of course are threatened with removal from the country?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

You'll have to make it a very short answer, please, Madam Herenda.

[Lorris Herenda]

Absolutely. Thank you.

One of the services we offer at Yellow Brick House is to provide them with free legal clinics. We have lawyers in our community who are committing their time to speak to the women and talk to them about their rights. We also connect with legal service organizations, such as legal aid and SALCO, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, to provide information.

It's increasingly difficult, however, because legal aid is really limited in terms of what they can access and whether they have any rights to access it. We're seeing a growing number of women who are coming to the shelter who don't have any status in Canada because an application has never been submitted, so they're starting from scratch, literally.

Those are some of the challenges they are facing right now.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Mr. Sandhu, you have seven minutes.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you. I will be sharing my time with my friend Mr. Harris.

Thank you for being here this morning.

I'm glad the government has pointed out that the Minister of Immigration has taken consultations in regard to the abuse of and violence against women. In terms of the government's record, we saw even this morning that the Prime Minister was unable to identify even one witness who actually supported the unfair elections act.

Hopefully that won't be the case in this study, because I know that every single one of the witnesses who have appeared in front of this committee have been very critical of the two years that are required for a spouse to be in a relationship where she may be abused and may be unable to get outside of that relationship, fearing that she'll be deported. I know that the witnesses here are against such a provision, and I hope the government and the minister are listening to all of the witnesses in this committee.

I want to get back to the issue of isolation. You talked about how women are isolated from the community and also from family. We've seen the record under this government where parent reunification, family reunification, takes eight years. It takes eight years for a family reunification to occur.

Do you think that family reunification will help reduce violence? If a person, a spouse, is isolated here, would having that family here help reduce violence against women?

[Humaira Madawa]

For our community, I would say it would definitely help to take those women out of isolation. Now, the problem with a lot of the eastern cultures is that it's socially accepted. It's part of the culture. These women remain silent about it. I think they should be maybe more informed. It would be good to have their families here.

MAFCAN works to bring the community closer. We organize events where they come out for religious gatherings and all kinds of events. It kind of helps to be out of isolation. I think it would be more helpful if maybe they were more informed of their rights, of Canadian values. Oftentimes, even though members of the family do agree that there's violence, they will still accept it. They see it as part of the culture, unfortunately.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Waldman, you are a lawyer. We heard from the New Zealand delegation this morning that if somebody is in an abusive situation.... They actually have to live with the spouse who has sponsored them for one year, but if there is abuse in that one year, the threshold for them to prove that they are in an abusive relationship is very low. In addition to that, the person does not have to have a PR or go through extensive court hearings, and it doesn't cost them a lot of money. Do you think that's a good idea for us to have here?

[Lorne Waldman]

Absolutely. Of course, we're talking here about two different issues, because some of the women who come are victims of abuse and they flee their country and come here and make claims for refugee protection based on abuse. Those women have to go through the refugee process and they have to establish that they are victims of abuse, and they have to establish the facts to a balance of probabilities.

Women who are in Canada who are sponsored and who are victims of abuse also have two scenarios. The women who are sponsored, who came as sponsored permanent residents are now on the conditional visa. It's not clear what the burden of proof is on them to establish abuse. It's not clear from the regulation and from the policies to what level they have to do that.

The third scenario is that of women who are in Canada, who are sponsored in Canada, and who are being processed in Canada. Those women are the most vulnerable because they don't have any status. If the sponsorship is cancelled at any time, then their case is closed and they can be deported. That's what happened to my client. That's the biggest problem and that's where the greatest vulnerability is. That's where we need to have a clear policy so that if that happens and the sponsorship is stopped in the context of abuse, there has to be a public policy that requires that before any removal takes place the woman be given an opportunity to establish the abuse. I would agree that there should be the same low threshold.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for coming today.

Mr. Waldman, I'm going to start off with that first case you raised, in which the person left the abuse. It's difficult for women who are born here, who have Canadian values and culture, to actually leave abuse. It's incredibly challenging, and I can only imagine the additional burdens on someone who is out of their culture and out of their language and trying to take that step to actually get out of the abuse.

You mentioned that the person was detained and incarcerated. Would the prospect of that kind of incarceration have the great potential to revictimize that person?

[Lorne Waldman]

There's no question. This woman was traumatized by the whole situation. She'd been abused. She was in a shelter. She went to immigration to tell her story, was arrested, and was retraumatized when she was detained with her children in the detention facility and threatened with deportation. The issue was, of course, whether she was going to be separated from her children. The whole experience and the processing by CBSA of her case were very traumatic.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Were the children put in detention with her?

[Lorne Waldman]

They were briefly, but then they were allowed to go when we found someone to care for them.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Okay. So, there was a family member or foster care or some situation. At least they weren't completely removed.

Ms. Herenda, you obviously work with abused women quite a bit. What are some of the language barriers that are faced? Mr. Menegakis talked about the website and about all of the wonderful information on it, but if you don't read or speak English or French, it's going to be of absolutely no use to you. Certainly, it would be important to have clearer guidelines, to have better education programs, and to have better information for people.

How difficult is it for you to serve all the folks who are coming in who speak all these different languages? What kinds of additional costs are there for Yellow Brick House to provide those services?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Once again, could we have a very short answer, please?

[Lorris Herenda]

Absolutely.

Thank you for the question.

It's certainly a challenge, because we've had to increase the qualification level for our staff, if you will. Not only are they qualified counsellors, but each staff member must speak another language besides English. As I mentioned, we're able to work with women in 30 different languages, but still that's not all-inclusive. There is the additional cost of utilizing interpreters when we're working with these women and these families. Although the CIC site has a lot of resources, there are language limitations. As well, there has to be cultural appropriateness. It's not just a matter of the language but of also being able to provide the services in a culturally appropriate manner for these woman and children.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

Welcome, all of you. In particular, I certainly am an admirer of the work done by the Yellow Brick House.

I want to begin with a question for Ms. Herenda. The other two have already said that they oppose the two-year living together rule. Ms. Herenda, I want to ask you if you oppose it or are in favour of it.

[Lorris Herenda]

I oppose it. It's—

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

Okay. That's all I need. I only have a very short time.

I've asked 15 witnesses now to say just yes or no on that. Out of the 15, 13 said to get rid of it, one said to keep it, and one didn't know, so there's a very strong majority. I definitely agree with that majority. If you tell me that in return for this rule you get a smaller number of marriages of convenience but you have to pay a whole lot more in abused women, I'd say that's a terrible deal and to get rid of this two-year rule.

There's a main point that I want to make in my brief time. I don't know how many of you heard the New Zealand testimony, but it dovetails perfectly with the issues that you are raising. Earlier I sent a message to my staff to summarize the New Zealand testimony. I'd like to read that for you. In New Zealand, couples have to live together for one year versus two here, and in the case of alleged abuse, a spouse can get a nine-month open work visa easily. An application for permanent residence of an abused person is decided in less than a year, at a cost of $800, and two-thirds of applicants succeed.

Compare that with Mr. Waldman's first example. It's black and white. I asked how come it was so fast and so cheap, and the New Zealanders said that part of the answer is that they don't use lawyers. It's adjudicated by immigration officials.

I think we only have about three minutes left, but I'd like to use that time to ask this of Mr. Waldman. Having heard the New Zealand thing, to what extent could it be implemented in Canada and how would we do it?

For Ms. Madawa, to what extent would a system like that solve the problems you raise regarding the Afghan community? I think more things would be necessary, but it might go a significant part of the way. I'd like to ask you that.

[Lorne Waldman]

Very briefly, it could be implemented through a public policy that the minister would promulgate and that would indicate, in the case of an abused woman who is in a marriage, that before officials take any enforcement action, they be required to interview the woman and determine whether or not there are of allegations of abuse. If they believe that there are reasonable grounds—which is a very low threshold—that there was abuse, they be directed to process her application for permanent residence on that basis. That sounds to me like what they're doing in New Zealand. I've just summarized it.

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

If you compare it with your first example, it's night and day.

[Lorne Waldman]

Yes, well, the problem here is that there's no clear policy. The biggest issue is that we have the enforcement, the CBSA, working completely independently from CIC.

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

That's right.

[Lorne Waldman]

There's no coordination between the two, so....