Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 26th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

I will ask my questions in French.

Ms. Aref, are you able to hear the interpretation?

[Makai Aref]

Yes we can.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

My first question is about the conditional permanent residence. That is relatively new in Canada. Sponsored spouses used to receive permanent residence when they arrived here. With this new measure, the status is conditional for two years. If the relationship ends and it is not a proven case of abuse or mistreatment, the spouse must go back to their country of origin. Many witnesses have raised questions about this conditional measure. Actually, they are afraid that this may make women more vulnerable.

Ms. Aref, you talked about women who had not received all the information about their husbands, information that they were already married or had illnesses that they had not reported. In those cases, if the woman decides to end the relationship, she could be sent back to her country of origin.

Other concerns have been expressed, particularly in terms of the responsibility of women who are abused to prove the abuse. A number of people have pointed out that verbal or psychological abuse is not always easy to prove.

I would like to hear what you have to say about the conditional aspect of permanent residence. Do you think that it might be an obstacle to the safety and protection of women?

Ms. Raza, would you like to answer that question?

[Raheel Raza]

Yes. From what you have explained, the onus of responsibility is put entirely on the sponsored spouse; let's say the woman in this case. The potential for abuse is wide open. Unless more responsibility is put on both sides...and this is what I had mentioned in my document. Whatever orientation, training, or education, it has to have both parties involved. Why should the sponsor not also be held responsible in this case?

I think that's something that could possibly be looked at, keeping in mind that the women who are coming from, let's say, third world countries are vulnerable, don't have the language ability, and are coming maybe from war-torn countries. There may be a sense of desperation there. I think that puts them in a very vulnerable position.

This ties in to what Shahin had said, and the gentleman mentioned honour-based violence, which is when a woman comes and decides she wants education, she wants freedom, and she wants everything every other Canadian woman has.

The sharing of responsibility is a very important component here.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Mehdizadeh, do you have anything to add about the conditional aspect of permanent residence?

[Supt Shahin Mehdizadeh]

I'm sorry. I forgot to put my earpiece in.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Ms. Aref, do you have anything to add to that?

What do you think about the conditional aspect?

[Makai Aref]

Yes. I have an assistant. She will explain it to you very well. I would like to introduce Patmeena. She's with me. She will answer this question for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There is no problem, if we could have her name, please.

[Patmeena Sabit, Program Assistant, Afghan Women’s Centre of Montreal]

My name is Patmeena Sabit. I'm a program assistant with Ms. Aref at the Afghan Women's Centre.

One of the things I wanted to clarify, just speaking to the issue of the illness. What I think Ms. Aref was saying was that women are given wrong information, for example, by their husbands or by individuals who go there. Once these brides or these women are brought here, they realize some of the information was incorrect or misleading, that it's actually the spouses themselves, for example, that may have certain physical or mental illnesses, or may have already been married, or have other families. So, I just wanted to clear that up.

Secondly, in terms of the provisional or the conditional sponsorship or the conditional residency that's provided here, I think what Ms. Aref wants to communicate is that it does really provide a further means of certain individuals taking advantage of the system.

For example, for women that are brought here without skills, without jobs, and where they are abused either verbally, emotionally, or physically, it becomes kind of a trial period where, for example, they might not be able to reach out for help because that hangs over them. This idea that within these two years, if you don't “behave”, then there is a possibility these sponsors, the people who sponsored them, can send them back.

It really does provide just a further means, one aspect of it, of people maybe further abusing the system. I think these women are very vulnerable already. It might provide a further means of vulnerability for them.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Would you suggest eliminating the conditional aspect form permanent residence or would you like to make suggestions to ensure that this aspect does not make women more vulnerable?

Ms. Aref or her colleague can answer the question.

[Patmeena Sabit]

One of the things Ms. Aref sees and we see at the Afghan Women's Centre....Our experience is that the two years conditional residency or permanent residency, the way it might be addressed is if, for example, these women themselves were talked to or counselled by government workers, social workers, or aid workers to see what their point of view is.

I don't know how that would be determined if, for example, someone had taken advantage of the system and within that two years it was determined they would have to return home. I think it's very important to document their experiences and to get feedback from them as to what their experience had been within those two years.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sabit.

Mr. McCallum.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome again to all of the witnesses.

I'd like to pursue the NDP line of questioning a little bit, in a slightly different way. I think that we have been concerned in these committee hearings about an imbalance of power between the one who is sponsored and the person doing the sponsoring. Both in terms of the conditional permanent residence for marriage.... The person being sponsored—if there's a breakdown—risks being deported, which is a clear imbalance.

I guess I'd like to repeat the question asked earlier, but ask each of you for a brief yes or no answer, because I've asked this to other witnesses. If you had a choice between keeping the status quo with the conditional permanent residence as one option, or abolishing the conditional permanent residence and going back to the old system, where the person came in automatically as a permanent resident, would you prefer the status quo or the old system?

I think the advantage of the old system is that you prevent this imbalance in power. The advantage of the status quo may be that you reduce the number of illegitimate marriages coming into the country, although that is the job of the immigration officials, to determine whether it's a legitimate marriage before they let the person in in the first place.

I wonder if you're comfortable doing this, if each of you could just say, would you like to abolish the conditional permanent residence system and go back to where we were, yes or no?

[Supt Shahin Mehdizadeh]

I can start first.

I would probably have to take a really good look at both conditions, and rules and regulations under both, to be able to answer that question. I'm not really able to answer that question.

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

That's a fair answer.

Ms. Raza.

[Raheel Raza]

I'm going to take the middle path, it's neither yes or no. I know that's not what you want to hear, but that is the reality. The reality is that there is an in-between course, which one of the people just mentioned, that it could be the status quo with monitoring of the sponsored spouse to see that her rights are not usurped. I think this is what I had said in my presentation as well.

I think monitoring by the Government of Canada, and tracking, is a very important component of any arrangement for spousal sponsorship.

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

Ms. Aref?

[Makai Aref]

My idea also, as to this, is the second part. It is for the old one, except for the second decision. But it's important to not only give them two years to be under control, but to give them information, give them training, counselling, all to how you live, how life is different from the past country, how it's different from their...and what has changed, how is it safe. Many—

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

Thank you. I think I'm running out of time, so maybe I could try very quickly one other issue.

We heard from Australia and New Zealand that if the marriage breaks down there's a way to get expedited permanent resident status for the person being sponsored so that he or she is not quickly and automatically sent back to the country.

I think it would be a good idea for us to reduce bureaucracy and make it a whole lot faster for one whose marriage seems to have broken down to quickly get landed immigrant status.

I just want to ask if you agree with that proposition or not.

[Raheel Raza]

I'll go first with this one.

Anything to reduce bureaucracy, any day, yes. Anything you can do to reduce bureaucracy and fast-track these issues, absolutely.

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

Good.

This is one of the most bureaucratic departments, so that's a good answer.

Thank you.

[Makai Aref]

May my assistant also answer you?

[Patmeena Sabit]

Yes, I think we agreed that the expedited...providing them with some kind of status so that they can stay here, and the reduction of the bureaucracy. I think that one of the biggest things that we see in the breakdown of marriages is that people believe that they can get rid of those spouses very quickly just by the fact that they're not given that residency, and that would obviously help that issue.