Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 30th, 2015

[Richard Kurland]

The designers, I suspect, looked at the other components of Canada's domestic law provincially, so marrying within Canada would be subject to those provincial laws. Those provincial laws have floor limits on the age of marriage; hence, it would not necessarily be a good idea to have, federally, a minimum marriage age. Having that would appear to be an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

It wouldn't be necessary to enforce the intent of Parliament as proposed in the bill by having a minimum marriage age when the minimum marriage age is evident in provincial statutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's a good answer.

Mr. Leung, you have the floor.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you to the witness.

Mr. Kurland, I just wish to point out to you that Bill S-7, in part 1, clause 2, proposed subsection 41.1(1), actually indicates what polygamy is, and then proposed subsection 41.1(2) provides the interpretation, but we'll leave that to future consideration.

My question has to do with the proper training and the enforcement of the provisions by our front-line workers. We have immigration officers stationed abroad; we have Canada Border Services people at points of entry; and domestically we have our own immigration officers as well as municipal police, provincial police, and the RCMP. Given all of this training of enforcement officers, does this bill provide the tools for them to enforce legislation regarding any of these issues, such as forced marriages or child marriages? How does this bill do that, and if we ask in the negative, how can we do it better? I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Richard Kurland]

The lifeblood of Canada's immigration program is precisely that question: can we do it better? Indeed, with dedicated individuals from coast to coast to coast, from a policy perspective, and with external stakeholders, experience feeds into the great system and we do things better. We've progressed over the last 20 years to the state where Canada has never had as good an immigration program. I think we're on the right path. This bill does give us more avenues for information collection. We're going to be going to external stakeholders, the groups that are concerned with violence against women across this country. In the case of external stakeholders on our Pacific coast whose communities are directly impacted by this practice, that system will collect information and feed it to the enforcement people, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, among others, and where evidence permits, the hammer will come down.

The good thing about this, though, is that I don't see the need for additional resources for implementation. This is just another carefully identified fact scenario that allows enforcement officers, when they see a match, to bite down. In terms of enforcement, we've identified a practice. We don't need additional resources. It's going to affect primarily women across the country in a very positive manner.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

So it's correct to say that it actually ties in all of our front-line workers who address this issue and helps to—

[Richard Kurland]

It does, with one addition, an important one, that was raised earlier. More needs to be done on the information-collection side. More resources need to be brought to bear to allow women who, it sounds like, are in burqa homes and just can't get out. They're sheltered, covered. That's not right. We may need to move pieces on the settlement board to address this scenario that's been brought to light today.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Let me turn to you, Ms. Fakhri. You mentioned that one of the best tools is to provide information, provide counselling, and provide I would say a motherhood type of oversight for women brought in after being subject to forced marriages, and so on.

How do we do this in a very close-knit type of cultural family practice? You mentioned that when a wife is brought in, there's no way to access them. There's no way to provide that information to them, especially if they're from a foreign culture, they're illiterate, and they're not even allowed outside the home. What are some of the suggestions you have for this?

[Laila Fakhri]

It is really a very complicated thing, as you mentioned. We need to find a way to make that connection or to make it mandatory the same way we make language classes mandatory and compulsory. Language classes would be a great way for settlement workers to access these populations.

As well, if they enter Canada with some knowledge about where they are coming and how their life will change in different ways from their country of origin, I believe that will make a difference. As I mentioned, a booklet in their own language should be distributed to them. While they're waiting during the process of entering Canada, it would be a great time for them to study and review that. When they come in for their interviews, those should be part of the interview questions. For instance, “If you are facing an issue such as this in Canada, what do you do?” That way, later she might remember it, “Oh, before I came to Canada, I learned that these services are available. I can call these places.” Knowledge is power. Once you know....

As you mentioned, the issue might be how to make that connection with them. I believe it will be through settlement workers. If the settlement worker is a female, it will make a difference, as will regular meetings. It should be part of the agreement with the sponsorship that if you're bringing a person to this country, these are the requirements and they have to be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. We appreciate your taking this time. Obviously we want our report to be accurate and useful and to guide us in terms of this legislation.

I have a couple of questions. These stem from your testimony and from things we heard from previous witnesses.

For example, last week we heard from a young lawyer who was talking about polygamous marriages. To the question of how many there are in Canada, the response was anecdotal. We don't seem to have any real numbers. But if there is such a relationship in Canada, if there is a threat of deportation, then the sponsor or the male partner could simply divorce the second wife. That puts her in, I think, a very precarious position. There was concern about what happens to these women and their children.

In terms of these kinds of consequences, are you hearing fears from women who could very well be deported in regard to what happens to them and their children? Second, is part of the fear financial, as in “Where do I go?”, and the possibility of being marginalized from family, or simply being shunned by family?

[Laila Fakhri]

Yes. I have heard from many women that they would have a fear of deportation. I would say that culturally they don't want their family member to go to jail. They would be isolated from the community, not only from their families but the entire community and stuff like that.

At the same time, you can see a different category of women. A woman who has some knowledge will act differently. A woman who knows about her rights, who is a bit westernized, will say, “I don't care. This is my right. I need to access my right.” The woman who has no knowledge is the one who definitely would be shaking like a bird, saying, “What am I going to do? He already threatened to deport me. He will send me back to the other country.” You can see how fear comes from a place of not knowing. She doesn't know she has rights.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You have spoken about this threat of a sponsor suggesting that non-compliance or any kind of behaviour from the sponsored spouse would lead to a possible deportation. You referenced conditional permanent residency. Would you like to see that removed from the practices in Canada?

[Laila Fakhri]

If we can come up with a better suggestion at the same time to make the woman's life easier, it would be better.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of services, you mentioned we don't have enough services and there need to be more in place for women. Would you include safe, affordable housing in those?

[Laila Fakhri]

Those are some examples, which, in order to save time, I didn't mention. When a woman is leaving her abuser, she goes through huge challenges of staying for a long time in the shelter. Shelters can only accommodate the person between six to eight weeks, and in the majority of shelters it's even shorter. There is a huge waiting list for housing. Even though we advocate for priority housing, that's not happening.

In some cases a woman goes through so many challenges she will say I'd rather stay in the abusive relationship. The money she receives from social services does not cover her for even a one-bedroom. In most cases the options are shared accommodation or renting a basement, and in many cases she doesn't have credit. Nobody's renting to her because she's a single mom, because she doesn't have an income.

Housing is a huge issue for women who are fleeing abusive relationships.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

Mr. Kurland, by mentioning the term mut'a marriage you took me back to my law school in India. I still remember one of the courses we had to take in the law courses was the Hindu Marriage Act, and the second was Muhammadan law.

In those days we were young so when we studied this mut'a marriage, we laughed a little bit. We thought this was not true, to be honest with you. How can it happen that you marry someone for four hours, three hours, three days, or two days? Our understanding was that after that period you're automatically divorced. There is no liability and nothing like that.

I'm very impressed the CBSA went to that depth of all the laws and found out that small term in that act.

I have a couple of questions. One is from an immigration perspective, that is, the potential abuse of immigration, is there a possibility of this mut'a law being used? The second, quickly, because the chair will not let me go over time, from your perspective as a lawyer, I'd like you to comment on the law enforcement and the use of peace bonds against anyone who may assist in a forced or underage marriage.

[Richard Kurland]

The peace bond is an additional tool in the arsenal that will protect Canadians and permanent residents from bad things. I just don't know why it has never been done before.

On the effect of the mut'a, it would be disturbing if we found that Canadians and permanent residents engaged in this practice overseas. This report is redacted in large chunks, and I'll be leaving a copy today. It may be interesting to discover whether or not the redacted portions actually pinpoint the practice connected to Canadians or permanent residents, which is why it's on a watch-list for marriages of convenience, an immigration category to Canada.

Connected to immigration enforcement and the deportation of spouses—women—connected to bad situations at home, the first question one must ask is how they got here in the first place. If the female is in danger of removal from Canada, probably due to a misrepresentation, equally removable is the male.

On the point of information and technology, yes, the problem is the power relationship. One person has information and the other does not. It's simply, easily overcome. All that's required as part of the sponsorship obligation is guaranteed access to something called a laptop, and the model today, I'm proud to say, is the City of Vancouver, which has embarked on free Wi-Fi for residents of Vancouver. With free Wi-Fi and a laptop, a settlement worker or sponsorship group can train a person in how to access the Internet—problem solved on the information front.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Do I have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thanks, Chair. I'd like to thank both witnesses for coming out.

Mr. Kurland, I liked your entry there. It was very short but to the point.

I was in law enforcement for a number of years, and some of the cases I came across with immigrants, and even some cases with Canadians, used the defence of provocation. Many people who have committed murder have tried to seek a conviction of manslaughter because unless they used a firearm there is really no limit on the penalty.

They argue the victim's conduct provoked them to lose self-control and kill. Currently, any conduct by the victim, including insults or other forms of offensive behaviour, can be used as a defence, but the proposed amendment would limit the defence of provocation so that lawful conduct by the victim, which might be perceived by the accused as insulting or whatever, cannot be used. Only conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence could be argued.

I wonder if you could comment to us on this important provision. Do you think it's fair that honour-based issues be perceived and tried using the defence of provocation? Thank you, sir.

[Richard Kurland]

My goodness, there's no sense in regilding the lily. It's the right thing at the right time. It addresses directly a practical problem, so I come back to a more global view. Why aren't other countries adopting this? Canada's the model. I think you've nailed it, quite frankly, squarely on the head, or to put it differently, yes, it's the right legislative effort, which will take away a possible defence from individuals who ought to be incarcerated for a substantial period of time for their act.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Just to put a spin on that, I can remember a case, back about 20 years ago, in which the individual, who was from a foreign country—the couple was from a foreign country—actually totally and completely, in my mind, believed he was right, and I'm pretty good at evaluating people.

Now, can you answer to me how we deal with that individual? He didn't have an excuse. There is no excuse. There is no good provocation, but he didn't know any better, or it could be that she didn't know any better, reversing the scenario.

That's just a point.

[Richard Kurland]

Well, that's what juries are for.

It would be insulting to put that mindset into the category of persons who do not understand the nature and quality of their act.

While we're talking about law school, going back to law school days in the criminal law courses, how do you treat ideas that are present in the individual's mind that lead to a horrific act? This question goes to the fundamental goals of our criminal justice system in terms of outcomes. This bill addresses a particular outcome in the appropriate way. It's too bad it wasn't there 20 years ago, when you had your case.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Absolutely. It would have been a lot easier.

Ms. Fakhri, last week we had a witness like you here, Mr. Tahir Gora of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum. He said there are a number of people who criticize the name of the bill, calling it pretty loaded, but that his group believes in “calling a spade a spade” and believes that violence against women is absolutely barbaric and must be addressed strongly, as forced marriages, polygamy, and honour killings happen every day around the world under the guise of cultural practices.

Could you give me your comments on whether you agree that the wording we have in this legislation is adequate?