Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[Kathryn Marshall]

Legislation has played such an important role throughout our history in defining what is abuse against women and what is socially and morally wrong. Words are important. If we're too afraid to call these heinous, inhuman, terrible practices what they are in the House of Commons, then how can we expect society to point at these things and say they are wrong too? We have to set the standard and point at these things and call them what they are.

We can't be afraid to do that, just like Margaret Mitchell, the NDP MP, did when she stood up in the House of Commons 33 years ago and said we need to call non-consensual sex between married people rape. She was laughed at.

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

Thank you very much. Our time has expired.

Thank you very much to all of you for being with us today.

We'll now suspend the meeting and invite our next witnesses to the table.

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

Order, please.

We are resuming the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration devoted to the study of Bill S-7. I want to thank the witnesses who have accepted our invitation.

We have with us, from the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations, Madam Salma Siddiqui, president. Thank you for being with us.

Also with us, as an individual, is Rupaleem Bhuyan, professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto. Thank you, Madam Bhuyan, for being with us today.

I see that our third witness has just arrived, Madam Lee Marsh, president, Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses. Thank you for being with us.

You will each have eight minutes to present your opening remarks.

Madam Siddiqui, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen and women from the House of Commons, and colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to have me share my views with the committee. I'm here in my capacity as the president of the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations and as someone who came here as an immigrant and as a woman.

The Government of Canada's decision to table a bill for zero tolerance of barbaric cultural practices is the right move and should be welcomed. For too long women have been oppressed through polygamy and forced marriages.

I'll deviate from my speaking notes. I heard the discussion in the previous session about the word “barbaric”. I think we're stuck on that word. I think we should look at what exactly is going on and move on from the word “barbaric”. I am a Muslim Canadian, and I have some views on that. I think what it is, it is, and we should move on that. That a point that I would like to add.

Critics of the bill have suggested this action is tantamount to calling certain communities barbaric. This is hardly the case. The fact of the matter is that a culture is the sum of various norms and practices. Cultures are not static and they evolve. Part of the evolution is, or should be, discarding injustices against fellow adherents of the culture. Indeed, over time cultures such as ours have strived to put women on an equal footing with their male counterparts and do away with discrimination.

Who in their right mind can support coercion and honour killings? Bill S-7 does contain a number of sensible elements that all Canadians should embrace. The explicit outlawing of forced marriages and bringing precision to the general provincial practice that 16 is a minimum age for marriage is very reasonable. The provisions that will make it illegal to transport a child under 16 abroad for the purpose of marriage will certainly go a long way in preventing the trafficking of helpless young women. While critics have suggested that this is targeted at the Muslim community, let me remind the committee that forced marriages, honour killings, and trafficking are not restricted to the Muslim community alone.

By dealing with the issue of polygamy, the government is bringing into sync rules and norms for those who choose to come to Canada with its existing domestic law. Indeed, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that the practice of polygamy exists within certain recent immigrants. Cases of polygamy in the Mormon community are already under scrutiny; and instead of being defensive or apologetic, the Muslim community in Canada must come out and denounce polygamy by exercising Islam's own tradition of independent thinking.

By pandering to extremists and retrograde opinions within immigrant communities for the sake of scoring political brownie points, we risk undermining the very fabric of Canadian society and debase the values of justice and liberty that this country has come to embody. The bill is really about protecting women and should be seen as a welcome step. People coming to Canada must conform to our values. They have to put aside their past understanding of women. In this country, men and women are equal before the law and in society.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Siddiqui.

Madam Bhuyan, you now have the floor.

[Dr. Rupaleem Bhuyan, Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you.

First, I apologize if I start to cough; I am getting over a cold.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to comment on Bill S-7. My name is Rupaleem Bhuyan, and I am a professor of social work at the University of Toronto. I am also a lead researcher in the Migrant Mothers Project, which was founded in 2011 to examine how changes in immigration policies impact the safety and well-being of immigrants who are facing gender-based violence. For the last 15 years, I have been involved in violence against women advocacy, as a counsellor, public educator, and now as a researcher.

Today I would like to offer comments with regard to the bill's title, how the bill seeks to criminalize forced and early marriage, and how the bill would impact immigrants who are facing domestic violence.

First, I would like to echo remarks made during the Senate hearing regarding the racist undertones of the phrase “barbaric cultural practices”. As a domestic violence and sexual assault advocate and researcher, I can attest that violence against women and children occurs in all cultures, groups, and societies, and in most cases cultural values are used to justify and carry out the abuse. I wish we could say with confidence that violence against women was un-Canadian, but if you look at the rates of rape, sexual assault, harassment, violent spousal assault, and homicide—specifically by male spouses, or former partners, against their female spouses—this is a Canadian problem. I strongly recommend that the committee remove the phrase “barbaric cultural practices”. I find that it is misleading from the serious issues that this bill seeks to address. Instead, I encourage you to refocus the attention on promoting gender equity.

With regard to how Bill S-7 seeks to criminalize people who are involved in a forced or early marriage, I join others who view forced marriage as a form of family violence that requires serious attention and a multi-level response for prevention and support of victims. Forced marriage is understood as the marriage that takes place without full and free consent of both individuals. The absence of full and free consent takes many forms and can involve a continuum of coercive, threatening, and abusive behaviours.

I caution this committee, however, against locating the cause of forced marriage merely in cultural practice. Cultural practices are no more, and no less, relevant in cases of forced marriage as they are when a high-profile broadcast journalist sexually harasses and assaults his peers, or when a member of Parliament uses his power to sexually harass staff members with impunity. In all of these cases, co-workers and other members of the community who know about the abusive behaviour and remain silent are complicit. In each of these examples, cultural norms and social practices provide the perpetrators with the tools to control, manipulate, and silence their victims.

I think it is important to reiterate what Deepa Mattoo, from South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, previously testified before the Senate, that Canada currently has several criminal sanctions for egregious behaviours that occur in the context of a forced marriage. Acts related to kidnapping, assault, and confinement are already Criminal Code offences that can, and are, used in cases of forced marriage.

Bill S-7 introduces a very wide net to criminalize people who are involved in a forced marriage but who may or may not have been involved in acts of violence such as kidnapping, assault, and confinement. Under Bill S-7, it is unclear how the law will define forced marriage and who would be criminalized. Also, as the previous witness has testified, the impact on youth may be unjust. I recommend removing proposed sections 293.1 and 293.2 in clause 9, which add indictable offences to anyone celebrating or taking part in a forced or early marriage.

This law also falls short of providing potential victims with the option of choosing a civil path for protection. I believe in the Senate hearing, as well, there was testimony from Ms. Siddiqui that civil protections would allow a young woman who may be living with her parents to have legal protection to prevent a forced marriage but still remain living with her parents. Criminalizing parents or family members who are involved in a forced marriage could negatively impact the young person. The path of civil protections could be similar to the route of child protective services, which investigate and ensure parents are not abusing or neglecting their child but still maintain the emphasis on the best interests of the child. I encourage this committee to consider options to work with provinces to provide a path for civil protection so that young people who are forced or threatened with being forced into a marriage may have the option to pursue this as a way of preventing the marriage.

My final comments concern how this bill will impact immigrants facing domestic violence. Though the Senate debates suggest this bill is not about immigration, the House debate has shown otherwise. I am most concerned with how this bill increases discretionary powers among immigration officers to deem inadmissible anyone who is perceived to be practising polygamy. The low burden of proof may lead to racist discrimination against immigrants from particular regions of the world who are considered undesirable. This provision would also put women who are spouses of polygamous men at risk of being deported or being separated from their children

Bill S-7's emphasis on forced marriage and polygamy cannot be separated from the numerous ways this government has been placing constraints and conditions on people who wish to immigrate to Canada as a spouse or partner. In the broader context, we have seen marriages scrutinized in fraud investigations, new conditional status on new spouses and partners, and the recent ban on proxy marriage.

In my research I found numerous examples where conditions related to immigration status are used by abusers to threaten and control a spouse or a child. I urge this committee to consider the ramifications of creating new ways for abusers to literally hold their victims hostage through immigration laws.

We are beginning to see the effects of conditional permanent residence introduced in October 2012. From data I received from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in the first 18 months nearly one-quarter of all sponsored spouses and partners were given a conditional status. During this period CIC received only 12 requests from women seeking an exemption based on abuse and neglect. Only four of those were granted.

I find this to be a very low number, and when I work with community organizations in Ontario and in a new study we're doing in Alberta, I see this is very different from the number of people who are coming forward seeking safety who are in a conditional permanent residence. This is an example where immigration policy is forcing women to remain in abusive relationships.

I'm not currently aware of any case where conditional status was granted to someone who was in a forced marriage. I certainly believe that criminalization of forced marriage outlined in this bill may require women with conditional status to report a forced marriage to police in order to qualify for the exemption, as one of their forms of evidence. I believe this significantly raises barriers to reporting abuse. It is very likely that people in forced marriages will fear that coming forward to report the abuse in their lives will lead to losing their immigration status.

When women must choose between their right to remain in Canada and their safety from violence, we are creating a dangerous environment, one that will compromise the basic human rights of people living in Canada.

I recommend the removal of conditional permanent residence, or an easy pathway for women who are facing violence, including forced marriage, or who are in a polygamous relationship, that does not require the consent or consult of their sponsor so that they may achieve permanent residence without being further exposed to abuse in their relationships.

I also would recommend the committee consider creating a special unit in Citizen and Immigration Canada. There are many forms of abuse that sponsors can use, and I believe that this is a dedicated area that I would like this committee to consider.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Bhuyan.

Madam Marsh, you now have the floor.

[Lee Marsh, President, Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses, As an Individual]

My name is Lee Marsh. I am 62 years old, and until recently I carried a family secret for 45 years.

In 1970 my mother arranged for me to marry a man I did not want to marry. I recently spoke about this to Maclean's magazine, which is how I was found and invited to come here.

When I was 17 years old, my mother, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, decided that I needed to be married. For several months she would take me from one congregation to another, looking for a Jehovah's Witness for me to marry. She had two criteria: they had to be willing to marry me, and they had to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of the men she introduced me to were 10 or 20 years older than I was, or even more, and she quickly discovered that these men all had mental health issues. She then moved on to the next person on her list.

During this time, a young man was coming to our home for a Bible study group. After the group he would stay, and my mother would spend hours trying to convince him that this was the one true religion. After a while, she got me involved in sitting there and trying to teach him the beliefs. I turned 18 in June of that year. Two weeks later, while I was in the kitchen talking to this man and explaining more of the beliefs, my mother walked into the room and said, “If you're going to continue to come here, you two have to get married.” Then she walked out of the room. I was stunned. I didn't know what to say.

He looked at me and said, “So what do you think?” I was too afraid to say no. I did what my mother expected. My mother was listening around the corner, and she came back in and started making preparations for a wedding. He wasn't baptized yet, so she told him that he would have to call one of the elders in the congregation and make all of the arrangements to get baptized in four weeks. She arranged for the wedding to occur the week after that.

My mother made all the preparations. She did everything. Then someone asked us how long we had been seeing each other. Witnesses don't date. They're only allowed to marry other Witnesses. They're just supposed to know who they like, start talking to them, and decide whether they want to marry them. The parents or the elders in the congregation will see these two people talking and say, “Ah, we have to get these two hooked up together.” They start pressuring the two regarding plans to get married.

But there I was, with somebody asking me how long we'd been seeing each other, and I had no answer. We had never been on a date. My mother decided that we needed to go out on a date in those five weeks between her proposal and the wedding. She arranged for us to go to the movies, with one of my brothers as a chaperone because we would not be allowed to be alone together.

I had known this man for six months. We had never had one personal conversation. I knew almost nothing about him, and he only knew what he saw when he came to our home. In five weeks she proposed, pushed him to get baptized, and pushed me into wedding preparations, and then we were married.

You might ask why I went through with it. I wanted to break it off, because I really didn't want to marry him, but I didn't dare to, for two important reasons.

The first was the fear of my mother. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the rod of discipline. In my mother's case, it was a leather strap, and all five of her children got it. My last beating was shortly before this proposal. I was still 17. Saying no to my mother was not even something that I consciously ever thought of. I didn't say no to her about anything.

The second was the fear of the elders in the congregation. Once two Witnesses are engaged, they're considered “as if married”, although they're still not allowed to live together or have sex. Breaking off an engagement is as serious an issue as getting a divorce, which is not allowed. That person can face disciplinary action. It could mean being expelled or excommunicated from the congregation if the wedding is called off.

But over and above the fear, there is an issue of undue influence. In each of the stories that you have heard or you may hear, the issue of undue influence becomes more apparent. Undue influence is a process whereby a person's normal and healthy mental processes are replaced with the thoughts and feelings of the group leader. Individuals are not encouraged to become autonomous or to learn to think for themselves. They are systematically taught to follow the will of the leader or leaders, or parents. The leader decides what those under them do, what information they have, what they think or believe, and even what they feel. I believe that undue influence is at the core of many arranged marriages.

While my case is extreme for Jehovah's Witnesses, I did a poll of other Witnesses, thinking that I'm, of course, the only one. Thirty-seven people said that they felt pushed into an early marriage that they did not want or were not ready for. One man said that because he was gay, his parents believed his condition could be cured by having sex with a woman, so they pushed him into getting married. Most said that they were pushed into it because they were seen talking to a boy, and that was enough for the parents and the elders to start questioning them about intentions for marriage, and then pushing them towards it. Almost everyone was married before they turned 19, some as young as 16 years old.

In almost every closed group that demands members marry only within the group, undue influence will be at the crux of how these children are pushed into marriages they don't want and are unable to prevent. Arranged marriages are not just about immigrants bringing customs with them from their own countries. The French part of my family has lived in Canada for 16 generations. The other side of my family came from the U.K. and has been in Canada for four generations.

Many orthodox and fundamental religions follow the same practices of limiting a child's contact with the outside community and encouraging young marriages for people only within the group, which serves to keep them in the group. These issues are for all Canadians, even those of us who have been in Canada all of our lives with families that would never be considered immigrants.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Marsh, for your testimony.

We'll allow the members of Parliament to ask you all questions, starting with Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

This morning all of the witnesses had a very clear view, but Ms. Marsh, I specifically want to thank you for coming out. I read your story in Maclean's. Thank you so much for coming as a witness this morning. It's interesting to hear you speak about your experience, for more than one reason, I would say. The opposition believes that the short title is a little racist, but your story is living proof, in my view at least, that these harmful acts are cross-cultural and not specific to one nationality or religion. So once again, thank you for sharing your story with us.

Ms. Marsh, you are the president of the organization called the Advocates for Awareness of Watchtower Abuses. Can you please tell all of us what the organization does specifically and whether you believe this bill will help victims of gender-based violence?

[Lee Marsh]

Our organization is an educational one that wants to address five basic human rights issues. The first is the lack of post-secondary education for young Jehovah's Witnesses. The second is the domestic violence that they do not report. They encourage the women to stay with their abusers. The third is the physical and sexual abuse of children, which again is not reported to the police, and the information is kept even from other members of the congregation. One big issue that most people know about Jehovah's Witnesses is the blood transfusion, and there we have an issue with mature minors being coerced and unduly influenced to refuse blood transfusions when they need it. The last one is the shunning policy, which goes hand in hand with the excommunication, or, as they call it, “disfellowshipping”, where even members of your own family will not be allowed to speak with you.

Those are our five issues. Our goal is to inform the public, as well as the media and politicians, of these issues.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Would you like to make a comment on the bill, on whether in your view the bill will help to address the issues?

[Lee Marsh]

If I had known that what my mother was doing was against the law, I might have felt more able to say no. It would have given me an out to say, “But you can't do this. It's against the law.” It's not that Witnesses really pay much attention to the law when they want something, but it might have helped me. Certainly, I think if my mother had known it was against the law, maybe she wouldn't have been so eager to arrange for me to be out from underneath her roof.

I think a bill alone is not enough. We need to be able to find ways to let children, young people, know what their human rights are. I think this is something that needs to be taught in schools. If we have a bill, then we need to be able to have courses or classes in school where these kids can get the information about what is legal, what isn't, and what their rights are.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you. You actually answered my second question also, which would have been about how we communicate with children.

Ms. Salma Siddiqui, it's good to see you once again. I would like you to make some comments with regard to dealing with the issue of polygamy through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government is syncing the rules for immigrants and Canadians. I'd like you to expand your thoughts on that. I am an immigrant. I came 25 years or so ago. How important is it that immigrants, newcomers, understand that these values are not welcome here in Canada?

[Salma Siddiqui]

I think the rule of law, which is one and for all, is not being taken seriously by many communities. The story that we heard firsthand about the Jehovah's Witnesses proves that it is not within one culture and it is not within one religion that this is happening.

For instance, I am a Muslim and I can talk about Islam and what my beliefs are. Sharia law is being taken unofficially, or even officially, really, and that's what's allowing these polygamous marriages.

We have to have one law. This is Canada, and we need to be very strict about that. That's what I'm going for.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Some of the critics of this bill do accuse it of singling out particular religions and their practices. You mentioned you practice the Muslim faith. But the government knows that there is a distinction between a religious practice and a cultural practice.

Do you agree that ordinary Canadians deserve protection from barbaric practices, regardless of the majority religion in their country of origin?

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

Very quickly, please. You have a few seconds to answer.

[Salma Siddiqui]

I don't believe this is aimed at any one group. We are in Canada and we have to live as Canadians. Everyone has to accept that.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sandhu, you have the floor.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

Thank you, Ms. Marsh, for sharing your personal story with the committee here today.

To Ms. Bhuyan, on a CBC panel or in an interview that you did, you said that the barbaric cultural practices act was a smokescreen to increase immigration controls. Could you expand on that, please?

[Rupaleem Bhuyan]

Certainly. I think the bill is changing many areas of law, and an area that I pay attention to is the changes in immigration law. In the last five years there have been dozens of changes that have restricted the rights of immigrants, temporary residents, permanent residents, and citizens. I think the potential to criminalize forced marriage can become a place where someone becomes vulnerable for deportation. If someone is involved in a forced marriage and they have a conditional status as a permanent resident, they may lose their status if they seek help. This is true for any form of violence, not only forced marriage. Leaving the conjugal home or the conjugal relationship can make one vulnerable to losing one's status.

As well, the criminal convictions associated with forced marriage or early marriage may create a space for deportation. The omnibus crime bill, which several years ago made a deportable offence anything with a six-month sentence or more, creates a larger capacity for the Canadian government to remove people based on their criminal offences. This creates more vulnerability for different groups of immigrants.

The provisions related to polygamy in deeming groups inadmissible are the areas that I think are particularly concerning. I think the expanded powers of discretion for immigration officers who may perceive someone to be in a polygamous relationship are very broad. I think the earlier witness was speaking about the lack of certainty about how we define polygamous relationships. That's something we need to pay attention to. Are we talking about someone who has many mistresses as a form of polygamous relationship? Are we talking people who have codified relationships? Certainly, under Canadian law you can only be legally married to one spouse, but many people living in Canada may have multiple partners. So how will the Canadian government define polygamous relationships in this context of very diverse relationships and sexual practices? Removing someone's immigration status or deeming someone inadmissible—I think those powers are too large.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Siddiqui just talked about having the same law for all Canadians. I would presume that would be permanent residents or immigrants to this country.

Madam Bhuyan, are these particular changes to the immigration laws, in terms of polygamy and honour killing, directed towards immigrants? Are they going to be able to withstand a charter challenge? Do you have any comments on that?

[Rupaleem Bhuyan]

Just to clarify, are you speaking specifically about the provisions on polygamy?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Yes.

[Rupaleem Bhuyan]

Well, my understanding is that this allows immigration officers to deem groups inadmissible. If someone is a citizen, this would not impact them. Certainly there could be a potential for misrepresentation. We can leave that open. Immigrants who are permanent or temporary residents, or people applying for one of those categories, are the target of this particular change in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I think we should also pay attention to the rhetoric of Minister Chris Alexander. The way in which the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration may implement this, I think, is similar to the targeting of certain countries as less desirable. I think you see this in sponsorship application times. If someone is sponsoring a partner or spouse internationally from a country that is perceived as less desirable, the wait time is much longer, two or three years. I think there is a culture of profiling certain groups as more or less worthy. Certainly the scrutiny of marriage fraud falls along those lines. I think this would add to that level of scrutiny.