Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration meeting number 19, Wednesday, April 2, 2014. We are studying strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system.

This meeting is televised.

We have three groups of witnesses. We have Salma Siddiqui and Tahir Gora who represent the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations. We have Kamal Dhillon, author of Black and Blue Sari, and Denise Spitzer, who is the Canada research chair in gender, migration, and health from the University of Ottawa.

I assume you're a professor.

[Prof. Denise Spitzer, Canada Research Chair in Gender Migration and Health, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed.

I hate to tell you this, but the bells are going to ring soon. So we're going to try to go through as fast as we can so we can at least hear some of you.

Professor Spitzer, we'll have you go first. You have up to eight minutes.

[Prof. Denise Spitzer]

Thank you for this invitation.

I wish to highlight three issues that speak to what I believe essentially stems from a paucity of gender analysis with regards to immigrant sponsorship policies.

Firstly, I ask that we reflect on the language used to describe this issue. In much of the discourse women are described as vulnerable, as victims, and in need of protection. However, people are not inherently vulnerable. They are instead made vulnerable by material, political, and socio-cultural conditions. Therefore, we need to ensure that women or any other potentially marginalized group are not compelled to bear undue negative impacts as a result of policies and practices. If we focus on the ways to highlight women's agency and their right to autonomy throughout the immigration process, we would be better able to build on women's capacities and capitalize on what they can offer to Canadian society.

Secondly, I ask us to consider how the structure of spousal sponsorships ultimately creates and/or reinforces dependent and unequal relationships that belies Canada's commitment to gender equality, as the policy endows one person, usually the male in heterosexual couples, with power over his partner. Amongst immigrant couples, men are most often the designated principal applicants, even if both partners have similar professional backgrounds. Women are relegated therefore to the status of sponsored spouses. As the principal applicant's training and work experience anchors the family's case for immigration, it often follows that any investment required to obtain Canadian credentials, be it in terms of finances or time, is channelled towards men's careers. In essence, the program reinforces an outdated model of single—again, generally male—breadwinners and dependent spouses.

Under these circumstances, women are often launched on a spiral of downward mobility characterized by deskilling and a loss of social status. Once again, we lose out as a society when these individuals are unable to realize their full potential. I acknowledge that some of these gender disparities may be pre-existing. However, I still maintain that the framework of spousal sponsorship helps to naturalize and reinforce inequities.

Thirdly, I'd like us to consider the case of women as sponsors of family members and how in fact these regulations can operate to make them vulnerable in this capacity. We note that foreign-born women, particularly from non-European source countries, experience the most precipitous decline in professional and economic status as compared to other groups of newcomers. The threshold income required for family sponsorship has risen, thereby disproportionately excluding women from being joined by family members.

I'll share with you some of the research I've conducted with immigrant women who came to Canada under the auspices of the live-in caregiver program, the LCP, to illustrate this point. After completing their obligations under the program, former LCP workers generally find themselves in low-paying jobs regardless of prior training or education. For example, in our study over 40% of former live-in caregivers earned between $10,000 and $19,000 annually, and this was at a time when individual Canadians earned approximately $41,000 or more.

What does this relative impoverishment mean then for female immigrants, such as a single woman who wishes to bring her parents to join her in Canada? Is she able to meet the income threshold required for sponsorship? What does it mean if she cannot?

Social support including the informal, emotional, material, and instrumental support provided by family and friends is a well-documented determinant of health. Thus a presence of family and enhancement of social networks are vital to the well-being of newcomers to Canada and this sense of well-being is truly critical to the integration process. The loss of social support and social networks is even more evident when women are unable to be reunited with adult children. For example, former live-in caregivers who have children are often most anxious to be reunited with them, particularly as most if not all were separated from them for many years prior to moving to Canada.

The age at which a child is considered an independent adult and therefore ineligible for sponsorship is critical here and many have found themselves racing against the clock to earn sufficient funds to bring their children to Canada or to keep funding their post-secondary education to maintain their eligibility for sponsorship. Yet as we know, application processing can take years and funds can be tight as women try to keep their young adult children in school while coping with myriad other expenses. In a number of cases, a woman who has been apart from her children for more than a decade has then been compelled to tell her eldest child that he or she cannot join the family, after waiting patiently and eagerly for that day for many years.

The ensuing stress that these women face has long-term health effects and potential consequences for immigrant integration. Indeed, how does one feel part of a society that has made one choose between their children? I recall interviewing a women who had been granted political asylum in Canada following the 1973 coup in Chile.

Twenty-five years later she was still distraught that she and her husband had to leave their 19-year-old daughter behind in Argentina until they were able to successfully petition to have her join them. They were certainly grateful for the refuge, but her relationship with her daughter never healed. When I spoke to her daughter who was by then in her forties, she still wept from the pain of separation that she experienced as abandonment.

The idea that children over 18 are meant to be independent of their families is a western construct predicated on notions of individualism. However, in many cultures family members are interdependent, and adult children play a vital role in sustaining a household, both materially and in terms of other forms of support. The presence of family members may provide the kind of loving support that would in the long term be beneficial to the health, well-being, and long-term stability of an immigrant, her family, and the community at large—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Professor Spitzer, I'm sorry. I have bad news. When the light's flashing that means bells are ringing, and we have to go to vote.

Because the vote won't be for another half hour I expect—they're thirty-minute bells—and then I don't know what happens after that, do I have unanimous consent that we sit for another 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Carry on, Professor Spitzer.

[Prof. Denise Spitzer]

Yet current regulations disproportionately impact racialized foreign-born women. We therefore need to consider the cost of excluding this potentially important avenue of support on the well-being of new Canadians, and their perspectives of, and their attitudes towards Canadian society.

In conclusion, we need to carefully apply a gender lens to examine how sponsorship policy may differentially impact different genders in both roles as the sponsor and the sponsored, and how it may inadvertently contribute to greater gender inequality, and to constraining a sector of newcomers from manifesting their own potential in both public and private spheres.

In addition, we need to reflect on both the gendered impacts of sponsorship requirements and the Eurocentric constructs of childhood, adulthood, and the family, and by doing so consider who is most negatively impacted, and who is made most vulnerable by our policies. When immigrants are able to draw upon social networks and support systems, we will foster greater social cohesion and a more peaceful and prosperous Canada.

Thank you once again for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. I'm trying to figure out what to do this afternoon.

Ms. Dhillon, thank you very much. You are next.

We'll go until the clock runs out, I guess. Thank you.

[Kamal Dhillon, Author, Black and Blue Sari, As an Individual]

Thank you for your kind invitation for me to participate in this important discussion relating to strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system. I’m humbled to be invited. As a result of my own personal experience with violence, I have become an advocate for those who, like me, have been the target of domestic violence.

As a result of my experience, I have authored a book entitled Black and Blue Sari that chronicles my marriage to a man who routinely and viciously abused, tortured, and threatened me throughout our 12 years of marriage. In the book I describe the harrowing details that unfolded, from the day I was married to a supposedly respectful, warm, and charming man, until the day our marriage ended. I was violently raped by him on our honeymoon night. From the wedding night onward, I was subjected to emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse that occurred several times per week, and he even attempted to murder me several times.

As a result of his beatings and his rage, I now live in constant pain with an artificial jaw, having had 10 jaw surgeries. I am literally scarred for life, and despite my husband’s violent death some years ago, I am still haunted from the flashbacks of those horrific beatings. I am a single mom of four grown children and also a very proud grandmother of a handsome grandson and a beautiful granddaughter.

One of the reasons I share my story publicly is to help stop this epidemic that is well hidden behind closed doors. Some people have asked me, because this domestic violence and abuse is so epidemic, what difference can one woman make by speaking out against abuse? I often answer their question by using the following illustration from he story of the boy and the starfish.

A man walking along a deserted beach noticed a boy kept bending down, picking up something and throwing it back into the water. That boy was picking up starfish that had been washed up on the beach, and one at a time, he was throwing them back into the water. The man said to the boy, “You can't possibly make a difference.” The boy bent down to pick up another starfish, smiling as he threw it back into the sea. He replied, “I made a huge difference to that one!”

In a similar fashion to that little boy in the story, I want to try my best to make a difference for those who have been subjected to domestic violence, even if it is one at a time. If we work together we can make a positive difference, just like this committee is doing today, and I applaud your effort.

As you can appreciate, it is very difficult to measure the true extent of domestic violence against women, as most incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault go unreported. Let me shed some light on this important subject.

Violence against women directly affects not only the victims, their children, their families and friends, but also their employers and co-workers. There can be far-reaching financial, social, health, and psychological consequences as well. Domestic violence occurs on a continuum and is a never-ending cycle, beginning with emotional and verbal abuse and sadly, in many cases, just like mine, with serious injuries and even murder.

For women of any culture who are trapped by low self-esteem, by the lack of skills or knowledge to be self-supporting, and by the fear of retaliation, an escape from a violent partner can be problematic. Most of our ethnic communities are close-knit, and a lot of pressure is exerted on the woman to remain with her husband regardless of the circumstances. Unfortunately, many immigrant women may also be abused by other family members when the extended family lives together.

Fear of deportation also plays a role in keeping the sponsored women in violent relationships. Due to their lack of information about the new domestic violence provisions, the sponsored women have very little idea of what their rights are. Their violent husbands often take advantage of this ignorance, using threats and false information to control the wives’ behaviour and stop them from leaving.

In many South Asian cultures, immigrant women are socialized to believe that they have no rights. They are threatened to believe that they may even lose custody of their children. Marriage is considered to be permanent in many cultures, even though it's slowly changing. We are supposed to stay silent and remain married no matter what.

Domestic violence can create a feeling of shame or embarrassment among the women that can drive the abusive behaviours underground. No one wants to admit that they live in an abusive environment. Another factor in recognizing domestic violence is the isolation. It prevents the woman from getting out and getting the proper help that she needs.

Some of my recommendations to the committee would be to provide more and ongoing information to these immigrant women about their legal, their financial rights, and issues surrounding abuse before and during their entry to Canada. We should ensure that these women will not be deported or face deportation if they call the police or the appropriate authorities on their abusers because most of these women live with threats that their abusers will revoke the sponsorship.

We should also provide them with materials that explain where the victims can go for help in their own language and with the current phone numbers. If at all possible, any record of violence should be checked, especially when there has been at least one prior sponsorship and such information should be relayed to the women in an initial interview.

We should provide relevant information to ensure that women will not face any deportation because of a marriage breakdown. From what I've heard there's proposed legislation for a two-year period that causes fear among a lot of these sponsored women that they may be sent back.

My final recommendation is to conduct a mandatory follow-up or evaluation by either an immigration officer or an agency to ensure that women are getting the necessary care by their sponsor. The evaluation should also monitor her progress in Canada; my suggestion would be every six months or annually.

In conclusion, I just want to say that abuse is a violation of a person's human rights, of women's rights, and ultimately, a violation for all. I have hoped that through my story you will be disturbed enough, affected enough, and enraged enough to join me in making positive steps towards ending domestic violence. I am committed to putting an end to all forms of violence against women and children. My desire is to see men and women come together to confront all such violations.

If we don't take the steps to confront this violence it is my fear that the violence will increase. It is my sense that many abused women have lost hope and they feel that there is no future. I believe that we need to take some initial steps to ensure that there are plans in place to change the current paradigm.

I thank you all for inviting me to be part of this discussion today and I hope you will consider my recommendations so that we can see a brighter and a safer future for women, and ultimately, our future generation, our children. Like the little boy in the illustration I used, together we can make a positive difference. I applaud you again for taking the initiative to address this growing and unacceptable behaviour. Bless you in your efforts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

We have a problem. I'm going to ask the committee to help me on this. We have another panel at 4:30. We also should have left a while ago to vote. We have to be up at the House probably in about 10 or 15 minutes. I'm going to suggest to the committee that we excuse Professor Spitzer and excuse Ms. Dhillon and that Ms. Siddiqui and Mr. Gora appear for the second panel. We just don't have the time.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, I was going to say something like that, Mr. Chair. If it's possible for our witnesses to stay and perhaps we can cancel the second set of panellists, when we come back we can finish off with these witnesses so we have a chance to ask them questions. That's up to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll do whatever we—

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

I prefer your solution by far, making sure that we can hear all the witnesses that came to Ottawa to talk to us today.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's fine.

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

I just propose a slight variation in that Ms. Dhillon and Ms. Spitzer, if they wish, could stay because then when we ask questions they could—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

There won't be time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm very sorry about this. One of the joys about being chair is that I have to bring bad news.

I'm going to suspend the meeting. You're all welcome to stay, Professor Spitzer and Ms. Dhillon, but we're going to have time problems. Ms. Siddiqui and Mr. Gora, we'll try to have you on the second panel.

[Salma Siddiqui, President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations]

What time is it at?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It will probably be right after we vote.

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

It will be approximately 4:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

About 4:30 p.m.

[Salma Siddiqui]

Fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to suspend the meeting.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to reconvene the meeting. I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen who've taken the time to come and help us, but you can see the crazy life we lead in this place. We had to go and vote.

We're going to let you all speak, but unfortunately we will not have time for questions. The meeting will have to end at 5:30 or so. We will try to give each of the three groups eight minutes each.

We'll start with the South Asian Women's Centre, Ms. Sekhar, the executive director. Thank you for coming.