Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 8th, 2014

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

There's a case in Denmark. I guess in Denmark the minimum age is being raised to 25.

Do you think raising the age would help the situation? Do you have any comments?

[Lynda Byrne]

Wow! I couldn't answer that. I don't know.

[Christine Hyndman]

Well, I guess in New Zealand we probably don't have sufficient evidence of a big enough problem to do that. There are lots of young New Zealanders who go away overseas every year as working holiday makers and who bring back partners. If they were 23 and they wanted to get married, I think that would be....

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I see.

[Lynda Byrne]

I think 25 sounds quite old.

[Christine Hyndman]

Yes, 25 sounds very old.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lynda Byrne]

CEDAW has recommended that we don't have any marriages under the age of 18 whatsoever. It was one of the recommendations that they had in their concluding remarks.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

For my final question perhaps give a short answer, please. Can you outline for us, when you mention “employment ready” for a sponsor or spouse, what are some of the criteria you're assessing for employment readiness?

[Christine Hyndman]

No, sorry, we don't assess at all for employment readiness. We have a very permissive partnership policy, I guess. We have recently strengthened our parent policy so that now people have to be quite well off to be able to bring their parents to New Zealand. For skilled migrants we have quite a high bar, but for partners, we regard that on a completely humanitarian basis. The only thing that we try to make sure is that the New Zealand sponsoring partner is a good person, at least in terms of convictions. So we don't prioritize people who are more likely to do well in our labour market, for example. It's all on if you're loved by a New Zealander basically then you're in.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

You're very generous and kind people.

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

Yes, thank you very much to all of you for appearing in front of our committee. It was a pleasure and an honour to welcome you to this study.

We will now suspend the meeting to welcome our next witnesses.

Thank you very much to our witnesses from New Zealand.

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

Order, please. We are resuming the 20th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to thank the three witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lorne Waldman, barrister and solicitor, Lorne Waldman and Associates, is appearing as an individual in front of our committee.

We also have Ms. Humaira Madawa, Director of Maison Afghane-Canadienne. Hello.

By video conference from Richmond Hill, Ontario, from Yellow Brick House we have Madam Lorris Herenda, the executive director.

Mr. Waldman, I will give you the floor. You have eight minutes for your opening statement.

[Lorne Waldman, Barrister and Solicitor, Lorne Waldman & Associates, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me. It's an honour to appear before this committee, studying this extremely important topic.

I see far too frequently in my practice women who have suffered abuse. Unfortunately, our experience has been that in many cases the immigration system compels them to remain in abusive relationships. It doesn't assist them to escape abuse and doesn't provide them protection in Canada.

In the limited time I have, I'd like to give you three examples.

Recently we were dealing with a woman who came to see us who had been victimized by an abusive relationship. She was being sponsored by her husband in Canada. She left the relationship and went into a shelter because she and her children had been physically abused by her spouse, who was charged. The spouse notified immigration that the sponsorship he had submitted on her behalf was being withdrawn. She presented herself at immigration, where she was met by two CBSA officers, who detained her because they said she was in Canada illegally.

There was no consideration of the fact that she was a victim of domestic abuse. She was put into detention and was scheduled for deportation. It was only because we were able to get a stay because the two Canadian children's interests hadn't been considered that we were able to prevent the deportation. We submitted a humanitarian application, which was ultimately successful. She ended up spending several months in detention before she was released, but ultimately she was approved.

But the system didn't work for her. It didn't work for her because there was no reason that she should have been detained. There was no reason that she should have been threatened with deportation before any determination was made with respect to whether or not she was a victim of abuse. The system broke down.

What we need are clear guidelines presented to immigration officers whereby, in the case of a sponsorship breakdown and when there are allegations of abuse, before any enforcement action is taken and before there is any consideration of detention or any consideration of deportation, the humanitarian and compassionate factors should be considered.

I'll give you a second example.

A woman came into my office. She was victimized by spousal abuse. She had been sponsored and had come to Canada on a conditional visa. She didn't know what to do. If she were to leave her husband, she was afraid she would be deported; if she were to remain in the relationship, she was going to be victimized by abuse.

I understand the reasoning behind the two-year requirement, but I would urge you to reconsider it. When you balance all the different, competing factors, the presence of this two-year conditional visa often forces women to remain in abusive relationships, in circumstances that put their lives at risk.

The third example I want to give you has to do with victims of human trafficking.

I've seen in my office over the years several women who were victims of human trafficking and who were forced into the sex trade, mostly by the triads—at least, those were the women I saw. When they managed to escape, obviously they were at risk, if they were deported, because they would owe this huge debt to the triad.

Their claims for refugee status, however, were rejected. They didn't fit within the neat, conventional refugee definition because they were victims of crime and they weren't victims who fell within political opinion, or whatever.

We see these situations in which people are being deported even though they are victims of human trafficking. There doesn't seem to be any provision in the humanitarian and compassionate stream for consideration of the exceptional circumstances that might apply to victims of human trafficking, in circumstances in which their refugee claims are not accepted or they don't make refugee claims.

I would suggest to you that these are things that can be dealt with through policies by making changes to the immigration manual instructions and guidelines on processing humanitarian and compassionate applications that would require careful consideration be given to victims of human trafficking, on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

What we need to do is to ensure two things. We need to ensure that there are proper guidelines for consideration of the exceptional circumstances that are faced by women who are either victims of human trafficking and/or victims of domestic abuse. As well, we need to ensure that before any enforcement action is taken to deport or remove these women and/or their children, the enforcement action be delayed until the special circumstances of the abuse are considered, because in the current system, that isn't happening.

Those are my opening comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Waldman.

Ms. Madawa, you also have eight minutes.

[Humaira Madawa, Director, Maison Afghane-Canadienne (MAFCAN)]

Honourable members of the House of Commons, good afternoon.

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

My name is Humaira Madawa. I am a director at Maison Afghane-Canadienne. We are a non-profit organization based in Montreal, Quebec. Our mission consists of supporting the successful integration of new Afghan Canadians into our society; promoting Canadian values; enhancing and sustaining the self-sufficiency of emotionally, economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged members of our community; protecting and assisting youth, women, and elderly Afghans at risk; and acting as an effective communication bridge between communities.

To address the question on how to strengthen the integrity of the immigration spousal sponsorship program in order to ensure the success of sponsored victims or spouses in Canada and prevent vulnerable women from being victimized by an abusive sponsor, I would first like to discuss some current challenges in the Afghan community in relation to the question. Second, I will discuss the challenges abused sponsored women face. Finally, I will provide a few recommendations on behalf of our community on how to improve the conditions of vulnerable people.

The Afghan culture is traditionally very patriarchal, resulting in the dominance and control of women. Afghan men who abuse women typically do so in order to maintain power within the family. Even in this day and age, women typically have a traditional role within the household, while men are breadwinners. The Afghan culture also emphasizes collectivism over western notions of individualism. Traditional Afghan families reside in joint family households, and extended family members are expected to cooperate to serve the interests of the family.

A new bride who comes into Canada has to live with the husband's joint family members and fulfill most of the expectations of her in-laws. She has to adhere to the conventions and customs of her home country. However, this family structure might cause additional problems because extended family members may encourage abuse, or even take part in it. Such cultural dynamics may discourage women from speaking out, as they sincerely believe it is their fate to accept the violence.

Arranged marriages are common in Afghan culture, and this practice continues to persist in North America. It is usual for Afghan men to marry women from their native country as the women are seen to be more traditional and could fulfill their customary roles, even in a Canadian society. When a new bride is sponsored and arrives in Canada, she is expected to adhere to Afghan cultural expectations. She may fail to recognize abuse or even acknowledge abusive treatment.

Furthermore, Afghan women face different challenges in reporting abuse and accessing services. Some of these barriers include isolation due to limited contact with family or others, no emotional support, immigration status due to prominent fear of deportation, financial challenges, and fear of losing her children. Language barriers reduce sponsored women's access to services and information about domestic violence. In the majority of circumstances, these women are completely clueless about the resources available to them. Prior to their arrival in Canada, these new immigrants are not informed sufficiently about Canadian values, rights, and freedoms.

Furthermore, some abused women do not seek help through the resources of the community because their sponsors and their families have established ties with members of the community. Immigrant women are thus reluctant to report abuse to anyone outside of the family. They fear that it will bring shame and alienation from their own community. Members of the community, though aware of these injustices against these women, face conflict of interest and choose not to blow the whistle. The combination of all these challenges in a foreign land makes these women vulnerable and helpless in breaking free from the abusive relationship.

The current conditional permanent residency requirement amplifies the vulnerability of sponsored women who are victims of abuse. Spouses with no children are required to live with their sponsor for a period of two years or risk losing their permanent resident status. Although an exception can be granted to one who can prove that she has been victim of abuse or neglect, this exemption is not always helpful to them. Victims are required to report the abuse in order to maintain their status, yet this is not an easy task. They are challenged by fear, shame, financial vulnerability, and other obstacles. Furthermore, they have to prove that the abuse took place. In a culture that is still hesitant to acknowledge the prevalence of abuse towards women, speaking out can be the most difficult task.

For example, in Montreal there was the recent family murder case of the Shafias. The first wife was sponsored to Canada on a visa as a domestic servant of the family. She found herself trapped in an abusive marriage and was too afraid to flee. She ended up becoming a murder victim. There are many other similar cases of polygamy and abuse among the eastern cultures.

On behalf of the Afghan community in Montreal, I would like to recommend a few measures to the committee to prevent vulnerable women from being victimized in abusive relationships and also to ensure a better integration of new immigrants into our society.

First, prior to their arrival in Canada immigrants should be informed in their language of origin of Canadian laws, rights, values, and available services. They should be informed that they could seek the help they need, should they be victims of abuse by their sponsors. There are currently no programs in place in foreign embassies to educate these women about their rights.

Furthermore, new immigrants should also be informed of employment, education, and linguistic and social integration programs. Attendance to this information should be mandatory as part of their sponsorship application before they leave their native countries. This measure would not only prevent vulnerable women from being victimized by an abusive sponsor but also facilitate their integration in Canada.

Second, upon the arrival of new residents in Canada, integration courses should also be made mandatory for new residents in order for them to acquire linguistic skills, learn about their rights, and to be educated on their participation in the workforce. Additionally, counselling services should be available at these centres for individuals in need. As previously mentioned by your witnesses, isolation and language barriers are the root causes of vulnerability of abused women. Through this program, women would not only be forced to step out of their homes but would also meet other people, acquire autonomy, and therefore break free from isolation. An abusive sponsor would not be able to oppose this measure, as it would be a condition for the acceptance of their sponsorship.

Moreover, as previously discussed, conditional permanent residence requirements should be abolished, as they place these abused women in a vulnerable situation due to their fear of deportation. Additionally, more publicity should be made available on support services, resources, and the rights of women fleeing violence. This information should be provided in a variety of languages.

Finally, there should be more funds allocated to community services and associations that support and work hard for the integration of their community members into Canadian society.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to present our opinion on the matter.

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

Thank you, Ms. Madawa.

Madam Herenda, you have the floor now.

[Lorris Herenda, Executive Director, Yellow Brick House]

Thank you very much.

I also want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about the issues facing immigrant women.

Yellow Brick House is located in York region. We provide emergency shelter and counselling services to abused women and children.

Just to give you the scope of the work we do, last year alone we worked with over 6,300 women and children. We are seeing a tremendous increase in immigrant women seeking our services, and we have adapted internally to be able to provide services in the over 30 languages that our front-line staff currently offer.

I also want to take this opportunity to give you a bit of a picture of what's happening in York region. In 2006 York region was reported to have the highest immigration population growth rate in the GTA. In fact, it is the fastest-growing regional municipality in Canada. The newcomers who are most likely to have immigrated are from South Asia, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia such as the Philippines, South Korea, and the Russian Federation.

Currently 45% of our population speak a mother tongue other than English or French. It's estimated that about 50,000 people in York region do not speak even one of those two official languages. The vast majority of newcomers to our region are identified as visible minorities and have racialized identities.

That is our current picture in York region. I now want to share with you some of the experiences that these women are facing in our community.

In regard to some of the issues they face, there are many countries around the world that continue to be characterized as entrenched patriarchies, with power disparities between men and women, both within the family structure and within the broader society. That's supported by culture, the social values, and religious beliefs. Many cultural practices that are socially acceptable in their countries are actually violating the rights of women in Canada, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Men who perpetrated violence against women in those countries were doing it because it was culturally acceptable. They were never charged or convicted, so when they're applying for immigration to Canada, the fact that they may actually be active abusers is never taken into consideration. There is a tremendous amount of stress associated with settlement services in the integration process, and for men who already have a tendency to that behaviour, that can often escalate the violence in the family.

There is an absolute lack of orientation for new immigrants about the laws pertaining to domestic violence against women and children. The family structure and traditional gender roles continue to describe many cultures. They are often encouraged not to pursue education or employment opportunities, so the man tends to be the breadwinner in the household. The woman is financially dependent on him.

In many cultures, unfortunately, young women are seen as a commodity to be bargained with, through arranged or forced marriages. Underage girls, many of them under the age of 10, are often forced into marriages with much older men or sold into human trafficking. This is happening with disturbing frequency. We're getting young women in our shelters who at the age of 16 have already been married for several years and have children.

In some cultures women are perceived as carrying the family honour, which is controlled and protected by men. If a woman is perceived to have dishonoured the family, she may be assaulted, or as we've heard mentioned, killed through honour killing. A woman who leaves her abusive partner would be considered to have dishonoured her family and could potentially become a homicide victim.

If a woman is fleeing a violent home with her children, she is not only fleeing her abuser. She is also fleeing the extended family, both his and sometimes her own.

In some cultures, girl children are unwanted. If a woman is pregnant with a girl, she is often forced to terminate her pregnancy.

We are also hearing that in many cultures the mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law are also becoming the abusers. They are controlling their daughters-in-law and training them in how to become good wives, with a specific focus on keeping family matters very private in order not to cause shame to the family.

We also know that many new immigrants settle into neighbourhoods where other immigrants live who share their culture and language. This leads to social isolation for women and children.

It's also known that children are disciplined more heavily, harshly, and physically in many of these cultures because it's accepted in their specific cultural norm.

Women who are not educated or employable would likely not be admitted to Canada, so their spouse becomes the principal applicant. They come to Canada as sponsored spouses or family members, and they're economically dependent.

We are seeing an increased number of Filipino women who typically have their employer as their sponsor. As many as 95% of Canada's live-in caregivers are Filipino women whose isolation, living conditions, economic dependency, and legal status create conditions ripe for the perpetration of violence and abuse.

If a woman is considering leaving her abusive partner and she's sponsored, her abuser will threaten her with deportation. If children are involved, he will get to keep the children and she will be returned to the country of origin.

I think we heard before that the new immigration laws are making it increasingly difficult for women living in violent homes to get free. Under these conditions, a woman who migrates to Canada as the spouse or partner of a principal applicant is required to cohabit with her sponsor for two years. She needs to provide proof of this if she decides to leave. She must also call in to the CIC call centre to report abuse. If a new immigrant woman leaves an abusive relationship and she has not collected this evidence, she is facing deportation.

If a refugee claim is denied, the woman does not have access to humanitarian or compassionate reasons for a period of 12 months to reapply, unless it's in the best interests of a child. Unless you're from a non-designated country of origin, meaning an unsafe country, you have very tight timelines to prepare for a hearing: 30 to 45 days. If you're denied, you can go to the refugee appeal division, but you need a lawyer to make an appeal at the Federal Court. This needs to happen within 15 days of the initial rejection.

Human trafficking is another growing problem. Human trafficking victims have a reduced chance of getting temporary resident permits if law enforcement is not involved in their particular case.

We have an increase in abduction of children by the abusive partners, where they leave Canada and drop the children in the countries of their origin. Women are left behind in Canada with no recourse to get their children back.

Intimate-partner violence is the leading cause of non-fatal injury to women worldwide. Musculoskeletal injuries—

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

Sorry to interrupt you, but your time is almost over. Can you conclude, please?

[Lorris Herenda]

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

As you can imagine, my list goes on, but I will conclude with some recommendations.

I think new immigrants in Canada need to get a proper orientation about Canadian laws and their rights. The services need to be provided in the languages these women speak. There has to be a single point of access for them, because chances are, if they're isolated in their communities, they will not be aware of their community services. We also need to look at a revision of the immigration rules that are punitive for abused women and children.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

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

Thank you, Madam Herenda.

We'll begin our first round of questions with Mr. Menegakis, for seven minutes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me say a big thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

As you can appreciate, this is a very important study for us. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Honourable Chris Alexander, held some round table discussions on this very topic in the month of January of this year and heard things that were very similar to what we've heard from you today and from other witnesses who have appeared before us.

In its deliberations, this committee felt it was important to do a study on this subject. Clearly, there is abuse. There is a problem in the system, and we'd like to identify possible solutions. Some of the recommendations you made here today are certainly very important, and we will consider them as we conclude our study within the next number of weeks.

That said, we do have a challenge. There is abuse in our immigration system. There's a reason why the conditional PR was put in place in the first place. Its objective, of course, is to deter people from using marriages of convenience to gain permanent residency in Canada. That does happen. We have many cases of that happening.

Something needs to be put into the system to ensure that Canadians are protected and that there isn't abuse of our immigration system. At the same time, we're very cognizant of the fact that the different cultural backgrounds, as I think you mentioned, Ms. Madawa, with some very live examples, prevent women from properly disclosing that they are in an abusive relationship.

I'm going to direct my first question to Mr. Waldman.

Mr. Waldman, welcome back.

[Lorne Waldman]

Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I know how keenly interested and involved you are with this type of work in your office.

Let me ask you this. How do you feel we could combat marriages of convenience if the conditional PR were to be eliminated?

[Lorne Waldman]

Marriages of convenience have been combatted before the visa through two different procedures.

The first was the careful scrutiny by visa officers, who have the power to refuse the issuing of a visa if they believe that the marriage is non-genuine. That has been happening as long as I've been practising immigration law. Of course, the sponsor has an appeal, and then the immigration appeal division decides whether the marriage is genuine or not. That process exists independently of the conditional visa.

The other important fact is that there's also the possibility of enforcement action being taken. I was in Vancouver last week on a case where there was an allegation that someone got permanent residence based upon a non-genuine marriage. He was subject to deportation. When I started practising immigration law, that virtually never happened, and now it's happening all the time.

The ability to enforce and the ability to deport people who engage in marriages of convenience exist independently of the conditional visa. All the conditional visa does is make it easier. If you leave prior to the two years, I assume there's a presumption that it's a non-genuine marriage, and you're deported unless you can prove that you've been the victim of abuse.

I understand the motivation behind it, as you've said, but the difficulty with it is that the byproduct of the conditional visa is that we're perpetuating the abuse. So as a committee, as a society, we have to make a value judgment at the end of the day. It's not that we're without mechanisms of enforcement. We have mechanisms of enforcement. The mechanisms of enforcement are the refusal of the visa overseas and the admissibility proceedings.

Are those sufficient? I would say they are. Also, I would say that when you do a cost-benefit analysis of adding the conditional visa, the benefit of making it easier to deport someone if you believe it's a marriage of convenience is outweighed by the danger. I ask you this. If one woman is forced to stay in an abusive relationship and gets killed, is that what it's going to take for us to get rid of the conditional visa? I mean, that's really...that's my sense.