Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 9th, 2014

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

You have five minutes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Great, I have five minutes.

Ms. Long, you were speaking a lot about systemic barriers, so I want to touch on that again.

The committee has heard time and time again from several witnesses about the language and economic barriers that might prevent the sponsored spouses from reporting abuse. In your work I'm sure you've experienced or witnessed additional barriers that would prevent women from reporting abuse. You touched on a few of the systemic barriers.

I wonder if, first, you could share some other barriers that women would face from reporting abuse. As well, in your opinion what can you propose the Government of Canada—and specifically Citizenship and Immigration, because that is the ministry we oversee—do to break down some of these barriers you see? What can we do to ensure that spouses are better protected after they report the abuse?

Yesterday we heard from New Zealand about their practices and how their threshold is very low for reporting of spousal abuse. A nurse's report can be enough to ensure that a woman who is leaving an abusive relationship can actually apply for temporary residence within New Zealand, based just on a very low threshold to make it safer, easier, and to make women less vulnerable.

I know I've said a lot so I'm going to leave the remaining time for the witnesses to comment on some of these things that I've mentioned here.

We'll start with Ms. Long, and then Ms. Macklin and Ms. Marshall, if you would like to add as well.

Thank you.

[Elizabeth Long]

Thank you.

I think the New Zealand experience is very important. It's about what priority we put on things. If we feel that it's important to allow women who are abused and their children who are with them an avenue to leave their abusers, then it's very important for them to prove in a nurse's report and have a low threshold of proof because it's difficult for abused women to prove abuse.

To allow them to have some sort of status.... Status will be the equalizer in these kinds of cases. Otherwise, no matter how much money they have, no matter what language skills or education they have, if they are not able to get status, they will not have the choice to leave.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

I want to return to the point that we already extensively screen people from abroad, allegedly to screen out so-called marriages of convenience. So why are we doing it a second time at great expense and difficulty inland, with this conditional sponsorship?

Unless there is an idea on the table to get rid of or very much diminish the overseas screening, I'm not sure there is much basis for retaining the two-year conditional sponsorship anyway. Without the conditional sponsorship we will not confront the problem you are now raising for us, which is, what happens when women are not believed?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

It looks as though Ms. Marshall wants to—

[Kathryn Marshall]

With respect to the two-year conditional status, this does bring Canadian policy in line with that of many other countries. The U.K., Australia, and the United States all have some form of conditional status. It's an important deterrent against marriage fraud.

Frankly, deterring marriage fraud helps protect women. It's important that we maintain the integrity of our immigration system and there are mechanisms that are built into the conditional status to help protect women who do find themselves in abusive situations.

I think it's good for—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm sorry, Ms. Marshall.

We've heard from the other two witnesses that there are ample legal ramifications or leeway within our legislation that allow for identifying and dealing with marriage fraud. So do we need it also in a situation that makes sponsored spouses, usually women, further vulnerable in this situation where they're already in a vulnerable situation in a new country?

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

I'm sorry about that. We have no more time.

Now we are turning to Mr. McCallum, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, all, for being with us today.

I've done a little poll of all of our witnesses as to whether they are for or against this two-year conditional rule. It's clear that Ms. Long and Ms. Macklin are opposed to it.

I think from what you were saying, Ms. Marshall, you might be in favour, but can you just confirm whether you would like to retain or get rid of this two-year conditional rule—just yes or no?

[Kathryn Marshall]

I'd like to retain it, and I think we can strengthen the mechanisms to help women who do find themselves in abusive situations to get help.

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

Okay, thank you.

My vote, then, is fifteen of our witnesses oppose it , two are in favour, and one is agnostic, so that's where our witnesses stand. I totally favour getting rid of it.

I think in response to Professor Macklin—and you were talking about other countries—we had excellent witnesses from New Zealand. If we do have a two-year rule or a one-year rule, as they do in New Zealand, then at least in the case of New Zealand, they have a fast, expeditious, and cheap way for the woman, if she is abused, to get permanent residence. It takes less than a year, it costs $800, she gets an automatic work permit, etc., which is a big improvement over our Canadian system. But it's still suboptimal because you wouldn't need that if you didn't have this conditional rule.

Now, the question I would like to ask each of you, perhaps beginning with Professor Macklin, is this. I'm afraid the Conservatives aren't going to want to get rid of this rule unless you can demonstrate that either it does nothing to reduce marriages of convenience or that there may be other means of dealing with marriage of convenience. Ms. Long mentioned revocation for misrepresentation. Can any of you give us evidence that this either doesn't work or does work? More importantly, can you give us other means than two years of living together, which leads to this violence? What are other means, other than outside the country, which we already do, of minimizing the incidence of marriages of convenience?

Professor Macklin.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

In my reading of other countries' practices, Ms. Marshall was absolutely correct that many other countries have some form of conditional status, yet in each of those countries the concern about marriages of convenience and marriage fraud has not abated. Nobody has said this has either reduced or eliminated the problem, so that suggests that whatever the problem is, this isn't working, but it does have these negative effects in terms of exacerbating exposure to violence.

One of the things that's never been clear is the size of this problem. There is actually very little reliable data about the scope of this problem of marriages of convenience. Although it is a deplorable practice, how much of our public policy should be oriented toward solving this problem as opposed to, let's say, problems of long delays in family reunification? So in choosing to make this the focus of a policy, I think it's worth the committee exploring through its study the question...not only do other states do this, but does it work? If it doesn't work, why are we doing it? There's no point borrowing bad policies.

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

Thank you.

[Elizabeth Long]

In my experiences, I have had quite a few sponsors come to me saying, “I was tricked into getting married.” The problem with this is not that they didn't stay together, the problem with this is that officers would not act. The mechanism was there in law for them to take the sponsored person and say, “We are taking away your status. Go to an IAD hearing.” The officers would not act because there was no mandate for them to act.

You have other cases where there is a marriage of convenience where two people are complicit. In these cases, who is going to know whether or not they stay together for two years or not? We have no mechanism of determining that. So this is absolutely—

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

Sorry to interrupt. Thank you, there is very little time.

Ms. Marshall, do you have something to say on this?

[Kathryn Marshall]

Well, I think the issue doesn't seem to be so much the conditional status, it seems to be the issue of women being able to access the help and resources they need when they're in positions where they are being abused. A huge barrier for women who are in these vulnerable situations is their inability to speak an official language. It's very difficult to access front-line support networks when you're not able to communicate, when you don't know your rights, when you're unsure of your legal status in the country. I think some of the recommendations I've made to help strengthen that could help alleviate some of these concerns.

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

Thank you very much. Time is over now.

Mr. Leung, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, panel, for appearing before us.

This whole situation of marriage or vetting what is a genuine marriage and what is a paper marriage or fraudulent marriage appears to be one where we need better pre-arrival interview or pre-arrival assessment, or it's a case of just simply managing risk in our immigration system.

On the one hand, I've heard from your comments that we can alleviate or mitigate a lot of these if the spouse who is being sponsored coming to Canada meets, by a large extent, all the immigration requirements of being in Canada as an immigrant.

On the other hand, and in detail, whether they meet a certain means test, whether they meet our minimum official language tests, or have a certain level of education, or they are of mature age, a certain age of consent.... Or even, if we want to go that far, an examination of their religious affiliation....

So my question now is: what is our best management tool to do the pre-arrival assessment?

Ms. Marshall, do you wish to start first?

[Kathryn Marshall]

That area is not really my focus of expertise, but I think ensuring that there's a very good screening process would be very important, as would maybe having a very full interview process and strengthening that process. But again I'm really going back to the core issue here of how we are protecting women who are vulnerable and are at risk of being isolated when they come to Canada as sponsored spouses.

How can we better integrate them so that they can be successful, so that they can meet people, they can access health care, and they can access shelter workers, women's centres, and education facilities? How can we do this?

I think it's really through education. We have to make sure that women who are coming as sponsored spouses have some kind of language requirements when they get here, that they are fully aware of their rights, and that the person sponsoring them is fully aware of their rights and the fact that any practices around women's abuse are not acceptable in this country.

I think that's where we really need to focus and strengthen.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Could I infer from that perhaps that a person who is being sponsored as a spouse coming to this country.... First of all the sponsor should have a means test to adequately support her. Second, the woman—assuming it's a woman coming in—should have a minimum level of understanding of one of our official languages, perhaps have a certain level of understanding, and be of a certain higher age of consent. Because if not, then that person coming in is totally vulnerable to the sponsor.

[Kathryn Marshall]

I think ensuring that the woman is of age of consent.... I know right now the age is 16. I think it should be raised to 18. I think having some kind of minimum means test for the individual doing the sponsoring is important. They're already taking a large undertaking to financially support the spouse they're sponsoring. They should be in a position where they can successfully do that and not default in that undertaking.

But in terms of the education requirements, I think having those requirements kick into force once the individual has come to Canada might help alleviate some of the concerns over that being a barrier to family unification.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Macklin or Ms. Long, would one of you like to comment for the remaining time that's left?

[Elizabeth Long]

I think the government should stand out of the way of love. We cannot be in the position of trying to regulate who is to fall in love with who and stand in the way of families reunifying. This is not an economic category. This is family reunification, and it's a different purpose.

If you have a family, just because the woman does not speak the language or just because the woman does not have a certain level of education does not mean necessarily that she will be abused. That is the wrong analysis. I have seen women who can speak perfect English, who have Ph.D. degrees, who are abused. That is the wrong analysis of abuse.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

It was my understanding that the minister stated categorically in Parliament that he was not considering the policies you mention, but if he is, and if you are, then let me add that if you want to reduce family reunification, if you want to keep families apart, these are excellent ways of doing it.

If you are interested in protecting women from violence or promoting integration, these are not ways of doing it.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

My suggestion was merely how we manage the risk and how we pre-assess a situation whereby a woman might possibly have been abused before coming to this country.

Ms. Long, you mentioned that the government should not stand in the place of love. That flies against the argument that there are marriages that are arranged by cultural requirements, and in arranged marriages I guess a woman has no choice. It's not really love, is it?