Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 5th, 2015

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

Thank you.

Bill S-7 contains a measure that seeks to criminalize anyone who attends a forced marriage ceremony and is aware that the marriage is not a free choice for one of the two persons getting married. One of the concerns is that the main problem with forced marriages is silence. We are wondering whether a measure that can criminalize the entire family and part of the community would not encourage the victim to be silent rather than to look for help.

What do you think about that measure?

[Susanne Willaume Fabricius]

There's always this risk, and I think it's present every time we, in this field, are trying to help someone, that we are afraid that it will [Technical difficulty—Editor] someone for asking for our help. I still think you have to do both; you have to have this strong support system with a lot of people who know about these things so they can help the youngsters efficiently. At the same time, you have to tell the families and all the helpers—because there are a lot of people who will help in doing that—that this is not okay. It's long-term raising awareness. It takes a long time to change the views of these things. It's connected to something very deep in the family, so it's not something you change overnight.

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

Thank you.

A number of experts are saying that most of the problematic situations identified in Bill S-7 are already prohibited here and that a bill is not necessarily a good way to send a strong message. Someone who testified before the committee last week had experienced a forced marriage when she was young. As a young victim, she did not know her rights or the bills passed by Parliament.

Given that child marriages, forced marriages and polygamy are already prohibited in Canada, do you think Bill S-7 is really the best way to send a strong message? Could the government not use a different method to say or clearly remind the public that these practices are unacceptable and prohibited in Canada?

How do you think we could reach out to victims and families and send them a clear and strong message?

[Susanne Willaume Fabricius]

Maybe I'm repeating myself, but I still think raising awareness has to be done on different levels, in schools, through education, in a lot of places. You have to raise awareness about this through big campaigns. In 2012 the government made a four-year plan, including a lot of these things, such as raising awareness, educating professionals, educating youngsters through empowerment, educating [Technical difficulty—Editor], a lot of these things that all should be of help, and of course my NGO, which is the biggest in this country, to help the families in a sufficient way.

We do mediation as well, but it's something you can only do if you're [Technical difficulty—Editor] because there's always a risk of making the situation worse. The families are very aware that this has to be a private matter, and it can become dangerous if it's not a private matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCallum.

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

She wants to comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The way the rules are in this place, unfortunately, we ask questions of you. The committee asks questions of you—

[Raheel Raza]

I'm just a rule breaker. You can ignore me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—and at that point you might have an opportunity to comment.

[Raheel Raza]

Sure, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Maybe some day we'll change the rules and just have an open mic. We'll see.

Mr. McCallum.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the three witnesses.

I'd just like to echo what my NDP colleague said at the beginning. Of course, all parties are opposed to these practices. It's a question of how best to deal with them, and clearly there is some disagreement. I certainly agree with Ms. Go that we should regard these issues through the lens of what we can do to reduce violence against women.

I'd like to ask a question of Ms. Willaume Fabricius about polygamy. I think you heard that there was some disagreement with the law in Canada and that there could be unintended consequences and a negative effect on the children and the wives if polygamists are deported. I'm wondering how this issue is dealt with in Denmark. Do you have recommendations in this particular area based on your experience?

[Susanne Willaume Fabricius]

There can be a great danger for the women sent back to the country of origin. We have a situation in Denmark where they can still be religiously married but civilly separated or divorced, and in their minds they are still married. For example, when the man wants another wife, he gets a civil divorce and sends wife number one back to Afghanistan. This can mean great danger for her, violence, death, whatever. Rumours may have been started before she arrives that she is a whore, and it can be very dangerous.

The man will often get the children, so the women are victimized greatly by this.

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

Okay, then what's the solution? I understand the problem. How does Denmark deal with that issue? What would you recommend we do? Should we not deport polygamists? Is that the solution?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Turn off the clock. We have a technical problem.

[Susanne Willaume Fabricius]

You have to examine every case very thoroughly because this risk exists.

Where I sit, I sometimes write the authorities to stop a woman from being deported because of this. If a foreign woman has been subjected to violence, and it's physical violence, it's not that difficult to stay in Denmark. If it's psychological or sexual violence, or something like that, then it's difficult to get her to stay here, but sometimes we do, because we know how the situation is in some of these countries.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Go, I certainly agree you 100% about repealing the conditional residence for spouses from overseas, but we have gone through this before. The witnesses agreed as well. That has now been done. We are now in a different place.

From listening to you, I basically agree with what you've said, but I am not sure if you would see any merit in this bill. If you limit yourselves to the confines of the bill, rather than talking about other things that we could do, would you prefer to see it not passed, or do you think there are some ways in which it could be amended and improved?

[Avvy Go]

For instance, we talk about child marriage. I think that child marriage should be separate from forced marriage or a polygamous relationship. I don't see anything wrong with banning child marriage. It depends on which province you live in. The age of marriage is different everywhere. I can see some merit in increasing the age of consent, for instance.

I do have a lot of concerns about the other provisions. Even the expert from Denmark is asking this committee to look beyond the laws. You have to look at the overall picture. This bill cannot be separate from the rest of what the government is or is not doing. We have to talk about what else you are doing. Instead of cutting funding to the Status of Women program and closing down its offices, should we be providing more funding to it? Should we be providing more education, as my friend from Denmark is talking about? The deporting of women is happening right now. We have clients who are victims of violence. If a wife is sponsored by her husband in Canada, an inland sponsorship, and if the husband withdraws the sponsorship, even if we prove that the wife has been abused, there is no guarantee that she will be allowed to stay in Canada on humanitarian compassionate grounds. That needs to be changed as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung, go ahead.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

Ms. Raza, a while ago you wanted to make a comment in reaction to Ms. Fabricius. I wish to hear what that comment is.

[Raheel Raza]

What I was going to suggest is that every time there is a new law, there has to be a public awareness campaign. We talk about public service announcements regarding domestic violence. Similarly, there needs to be that awareness in the public, so that those people who are not aware of their rights will understand. There are many immigrant communities here in which the women are not aware even of their existing rights. It is through education and awareness through media, because we live in the world of the Internet, that.... Once they are aware that these rights are available to them, they will eventually go for them. A law is a deterrent. It doesn't happen right away, but it definitely does become a deterrent for those perpetrators who are thinking in their minds “I'm going to force my daughters to stay at home and go into a forced marriage.” The idea of the law will be a deterrent.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Often, that type of community is a fairly closed community. There are cases where, perhaps because it is closed, there is a higher level of illiteracy. What is your comment on how we reach out to them?

[Raheel Raza]

It should be in a language they will understand. This is the beauty of living in this diverse country, that we have access to so many languages. Public service announcements, brochures, pamphlets in different languages, that is what they have done in England. They provide the information to the masses, to the communities, in a language they understand. It is not to say that the bill by itself, when it is passed, will suddenly change the lives of the women overnight. This is a process. It is always a process when we talk about law. The process has to be from the grassroots, which are the families, the communities, and the social services, and then from the top down, which is the government. It has to be a joint effort if we want to bring about change in the lives of millions of women.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Let me change the subject. I am impressed with the diversity and the wide audiences that you have engaged in the work that you do. Obviously, you've spoken and interacted with many victims, as well as other bodies in relation to honour-based violence, forced marriage, and so on. A lot of this is culture-based. As you indicated before, you met a woman from Zambia, and you also have had interactions with people in Pakistan. Could you perhaps broaden that a little bit and tell us what other groups you have spoken to and what they have said with respect to this specific piece of legislation?

[Raheel Raza]

The groups I've spoken to have been very diverse. When the victims come up, that's when you realize that this kind of abuse, honour-based violence, crosses all barriers and all boundaries. Our tag line is that culture is no excuse for abuse. Honour-based violence exists in the Sikh community, in the Hindu community, in the Muslim community. I have had young victims from South America come to me and say that they're in a situation where their parents are forcing them not to lead open lives or not to marry someone.

In many ways, it is across the boundaries of ethnicity, faith, culture, religion. It does exist; it's just that the larger portion of honour-based violence specifically resides in the South Asian communities. Perhaps that's because of the pressure of faith in their communities or the pressure of patriarchy. When we look at societies that are highly patriarchal—I can see my friend in Denmark nodding her head—patriarchy definitely plays into this. Then we look at societies where illiteracy is a problem, where women don't understand that they have rights. That is why I keep on stressing the idea of awareness and education along with any laws that we may pass.