Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start the meeting. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are studying Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and a number of other pieces of legislation.

Things will be a little bit unusual today because the bells are going to ring at 10:05 and our committee will then adjourn. I have taken the liberty, as chairman, to put all of you on one panel, which is why this is all happening. I'm going to introduce you in a moment. That will leave, for the second panel, just the witness from London, England, who is appearing by teleconference.

Welcome to all of you, on behalf of the committee, and thank you for participating.

We have Professor Sharryn Aiken from the faculty of law at Queen's University, and Elsii Faria, a consultant in marketing and communications. We also have Aruna Papp, president of Community Development and Training. We have Tamar Witelson, legal director, and Silmi Abdullah, program lawyer, from METRAC Action on Violence.

You each have up to eight minutes to make a presentation to the committee and then the committee will have some questions for you.

We'll start with you, Ms. Papp.

[Aruna Papp, President, Community Development and Training]

Thank you for inviting me to speak on Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

I commend the government for its leadership in taking a stand on a very difficult issue and for defending the human rights of vulnerable women who are unable to speak for themselves. I'm thrilled to support this bill. In many ways, it is a result of my work with new immigrants and a response to the voices unheard in the past.

My career in community development and public policy was unexpected. For the past 35 years, I have been working as a front-line service provider with women who are victims of abuse perpetrated by their family. I have founded three organizations that assist immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. During these three and a half decades, I have spoken with hundreds of women whose pleas for help have propelled me to become their advocate. For the past 10 years, I have been conducting training for front-line service providers on how honour-based violence differs from other forms of violence against women.

I was born and raised in India. I am the oldest of seven siblings, six girls and one boy. I was forced into an arranged marriage as a teenager. I endured abuse in this marriage for 18 years, unable to leave for fear of bringing shame and dishonour to my family. This abuse has impacted every aspect of my life to this day, and I am 64.

Like thousands of immigrant women, I came to Canada believing that in this country—this country, whose foundation is built on values such as security, freedom, and respect for all—“all” included my daughters and me. I believed that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would guarantee men and women equal rights to life, liberty, and security of all persons, and would allow my daughters to have the same opportunities that were being offered to their peers from non-immigrant families. I was wrong. As a new immigrant, I was soon introduced to a new philosophy that was to become the hallmark of Canadian society: multiculturalism.

Then prime minister Pierre Trudeau had decreed that Canada's guiding principle for a just society would be that judging the behaviour of people from cultures other than western Christian ones was patronizing and elitist. Multiculturalism seemed to tell me that I should continue to live exactly as I always had. Inequality of values between men and women was part of my culture, and in Canada all cultures were respected equally.

While violence against women is a global phenomenon, there are a great deal of cultural variations, patterns, and manifestations of violence. The triggers, the responses to the consequences, and violence towards women differ across cultures. For example, South Asian culture is characterized by various norms that serve not only to maintain violence against women, but also to silence those who experience it. In the South Asian culture, girls learn early in life that they are less valued than boys. They are duty bound to service, sacrificing themselves, and devoting their lives to protecting family honour. The culture emphasizes duty and service, and these values are pounded into the girls through tools such as guilt, shame, and acceptance of severe and inhuman punishment. In their early childhood, they learn that they are the property of their parents, who will hand them over to their husbands at marriage. They can only leave at death.

In 2010, my paper, “Culturally Driven Violence Against Women”, listed 14 recommendations. Six of these recommendations are now included in the new government guide called Discover Canada, which is used by new Canadians to learn about Canada and to prepare for the mandatory citizenship test. We now have a tool that new immigrants and those preparing for the tests can use.

Many Canadians want to remove the words “culturally barbaric” from Bill S-7. The term culturally barbaric was first used in my paper “Culturally-Driven Violence Against Women”. Many people were offended.

Some of these people were the same people who, three decades earlier, told the media that there is no domestic violence in the south Asian community. They said, “We have female goddesses. We respect our mothers very highly and women are celebrated in our culture for their virtue and their purity”. They did not, however, say, “When we decide that certain women are not virtuous, we will kill them in the name of family honour”.

Those who object to these words, culturally barbaric, are individuals who have never witnessed a nine-year-old screaming in pain, her genitals cut off and infected, with a puss filled boil as large as a honeydew melon. I did at Centenary Hospital. This is something I will never forget. These are culturally barbaric practices and there should be no defence of this kind of violence. After 35 years of pleading with those in power to strengthen the laws, we finally have Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act.

This act is not perfect, but these amendments will improve protection and support for vulnerable individuals in a number of different ways, especially for the women that I know. For those who are outside these communities, these culturally barbaric practices appear to be well-hidden, but in the communities where they occur, many people are aware and supportive of these occurrences.

The bill states that anyone who celebrates, aids, or participates in a marriage rite, for example, or any ceremony knowing that one of these people is being forced into this relationship is guilty of a crime and liable to punishment. This thrills my heart. The bill also states that anyone being lawfully authorized to solemnize the marriage and knowingly does so breaks the federal or provincial law and is guilty of imprisonment. I am pleased to support this bill.

We now have tools under Bill S-7 to take action against those who choose to practice culturally barbaric practices in Canada and to educate those who are ignorant. For me, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act demonstrates that Canada's openness and generosity does not extend to those whose cultural practices violate human rights. Canada does not tolerate any type of violence against women or girls. Those found guilty of these crimes will be severely punished under Canada's law.

Personally, Bill S-7 says to me that women who have been silenced by their families and communities have now been heard by this government and that the government includes us in its laws, and protects us just like the rest of the women in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Professor Aiken.

[Professor Sharryn Aiken, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm an expert in international human rights law and immigration law. For that reason I'm going to focus my remarks on the aspects of Bill S-7 that relate to my expertise. I'm going to depend upon my colleagues from METRAC to underscore many of the points that I support and want to underscore as well, but are not within my primary area of expertise. I urge you, if you haven't done so already, to read their carefully constructed brief.

The three points I'm going to address relate to first of all the inclusion of a new category of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—which I'm going to refer to as IRPA for the sake of brevity—the decision to set 16 as the minimum age of marriage and, time permitting, a few remarks on the short title of the act.

At the outset I want to state very clearly that I am strongly opposed to the bill. It's not because I don't share my colleague Ms. Papp's concerns about the problems that the bill purports to address. It is rather that the bill is the wrong way to address those problems. Most specifically, this is yet another example of the government attempting to govern through law, and legislating in the absence of empirical evidence with respect to how best to address a problem.

More often than not during this government's tenure, we have seen bill after bill and legal tool kits being thrown at problems that don't need new laws. What they need are policies, programs and, in many cases, resources, but not new law. I think Bill S-7 is a prime example of this tendency to govern through law when we don't need law, because most of the act, if not all of it, consists of measures that already exist in federal laws. We don't need new words because we already have the tools in existing legislation.

From my point of view, we would be much farther ahead if we threw out Bill S-7 and instead dedicated ourselves to coming up with programs and, more critically the resources to address the underlying problems, the very genuine problems that my colleague spoke of.

That's the road map for what I want to say. Let me be more specific first of all about the inadmissibility provisions.

As you know, they apply broadly to all non-citizens. That means they apply to foreign nationals seeking admission to Canada from overseas, whether they're seeking admission on a temporary basis or a permanent basis. They also apply to long-term permanent residents, people who have been in Canada for years and who've established themselves in Canada. For those people, people who are in essence already part of the fabric of their community, it means that the mere charge that somebody will be engaging in polygamy opens them up to the prospect of deportation. And, by the way, that would be via a procedure that has none of the hallmarks of due process, which Canadian citizens come to expect when they're threatened with such a serious sanction. What do I mean by that? It means that an immigration officer makes a decision and it means that there's no appeal to that decision, but rather a narrow, technical judicial review application by way of leave to the Federal Court, which more often than not is denied. What we're looking at here is expanding the scope for deportation of long-term permanent residents based on a speculative link to some future-oriented conduct.

I would assert that if we have a basis in fact for a charge of polygamy, that's exactly what should happen with a criminal charge in a criminal trial, where long-term permanent residents, just like other Canadian citizens, face a criminal trial with due process and a right of appeal. I want to be very clear that expanding the scope of inadmissibility to deal with polygamy is in essence supporting a two-tiered system of justice. The people on the receiving end of that two-tiered system will be permanent residents and women as well. As much as this bill purports to protect women, it will actually lead to serious harm and the potential to disrupt families and to affect children. There's absolutely no provision in the bill to deal with any of the fallout from this expanded scope of inadmissibility.

I also want to underscore the fact that this is the first time that we're seeking to prevent even temporary visits to Canada by polygamous families. I would point out to the committee that in contrast, the U.S. uniform model penal code provision in relation to polygamy specifically exempts from its application parties to a polygamous marriage that is lawful in the country of which they're residents or nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily visiting the state.

Regardless of your views about polygamy, we can question the wisdom of not only criminalizing but also now ejecting from Canada those temporary visitors who have legally entered into polygamous marriages in their home countries. My colleague, Martha Bailey, from my faculty at Queen's has pointed out that Canada's monogamous character probably is hardy enough to survive the temporary presence of polygamists on our soil. I leave the committee to think about that.

Moving on to address the issue of underage marriage, the one substantive change that the bill does propose that does not exist already is to set the minimum age of marriage at 16. Because there's no demand for marriage by those under 16, this will have little or no practical effect. However, marriage below the age of 18 is considered underage marriage and prohibited in several countries, including Russia, China, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and Pakistan. That list is not necessarily exhaustive, because it was all I was able to find in the time permitting me to prepare for this.

Canada is an advocate internationally for a minimum age of marriage of 18. We're actually taking a contradictory position in the international sphere versus our domestic sphere. As you know, because you've heard the testimony, UNICEF asserts that marriage below the age of 18 is a fundamental violation of human rights. The government has not explained why it chose the age of 16 as the appropriate age of marriage. Nor, as my colleague Martha Bailey points out, has it referred to the calls of international bodies, such as UNICEF, to raise the minimum age of marriage to 18.

After refraining for so long from exercising its power to set the age of marriage, it would seem advisable to take international norms into account. I would emphasize that research firmly establishes that those countries that have set the minimum age at 18 have had far more success in reducing rates of adolescent fertility over time and more successful records of promoting women's health.

I haven't had time to deal with the short title of the act. Perhaps we can deal with it during the questions, but on the substance, Canada's resources need to be dedicated to prevention not legal sanction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That was a well-organized presentation. I'm sure your students love you.

METRAC Action on Violence, Ms. Witelson and Ms. Abdullah, between the two of you, you have eight minutes.

[Tamar Witelson, Legal Director, METRAC Action on Violence]

Thank you.

Members of the committee, my name is Tamar Witelson, and this is Silmi Abdullah. We are lawyers from METRAC, a non-profit organization that has worked for 30 years to prevent violence against women. Thank you for this opportunity to explain METRAC's concern that women and girls will be harmed if Bill S-7 is passed into law.

I believe you have our written submission. Today, I will focus on criminal law issues and Ms. Abdullah will focus on immigration issues.

First, METRAC does not support amending the Criminal Code to create offences for knowingly celebrating, aiding, or participating in a marriage ceremony in which a woman is forced to marry against her will or under the age of 16.

This very broad language risks criminalizing many community and family members, including women who may not be able to refuse to participate in such marriage ceremonies, exposing them to a possible five years in prison. We know that women facing forced and under-age marriage will not report if their family and community members face penalties. We fear that forced marriage will become clandestine, further isolating women and girls from help.

A non-citizen who is sentenced to jail for six months under these provisions may become inadmissible and be deported from Canada, leaving the woman or girl saved from forced marriage, but without family, financial, and social supports in Canada. And she too may be deported, as a family member sponsored by the deportee.

Criminal sanctions against forced and under-age marriage risk isolating vulnerable women and trapping them in abusive marriages. Criminal sanctions add barriers to safety. Canada needs education, counselling, and financial and housing support to truly combat forced marriage.

Second, METRAC does not support adding a new peace bond to the Criminal Code specifically aimed at preventing a person from aiding a forced or under-age marriage.

As you know, refusal to enter into a peace bond or a breach of its terms has criminal consequences, including jail time, and this risk will likely deter many women and girls from applying for the peace bond. But if she does, we're concerned that the application process itself will increase risks to her safety. The defendant receives notice of the peace bond. The woman and defendant attend in court together in an adversarial process without crown counsel.

We know that women are at increased risk of violence when they challenge or try to leave an abuser. We're concerned that women who might seek safety through a special peace bond will be put at risk by the process. Existing peace bonds are sufficient. If a woman is afraid of a forced or under-age marriage, what she especially needs is a realistic safety plan with financial and housing support to prevent a forced or under-age marriage.

Third, METRAC opposes limiting the circumstances to which the Criminal Code defence of provocation may apply.

Historically, the defence of provocation has been used by jealous men who killed their female partners and claimed that they lost control when provoked by the woman's infidelity. But since 2010, the law in Canada does not allow the defence when the loss of control is rooted in feelings that are inconsistent with the charter right of equality. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly limited the use of this defence in cases of adultery, homophobia, and in the context of family honour. However, Bill S-7 goes further by adding that the acts that provoke must also constitute an offence punishable by at least five years in prison. We believe that this will deny the limited defence of provocation to women survivors of abuse.

Woman abuse includes emotional and psychological abuse, controlling and demeaning behaviour, and can be insidious and cumulative, and it typically takes many attempts before a woman is finally able to escape her abuser. An abused woman may be provoked to act in a moment of lost control, leading to the death of her abuser, but if in that instant the abuser's actions do not constitute a serious criminal offence, Bill S-7 will deny that woman the chance of the limited defence of provocation.

We recommend that this limited defence remain an option in all situations of woman abuse and that the Criminal Code specifically recognize the context of abuse and the court's direction to respect charter rights when applying the defence of provocation.

Ms. Abdullah.

[Silmi Abdullah, Program Lawyer, METRAC Action on Violence]

Thank you, members of the committee.

I now have the pleasure to present to you our submissions on the polygamy provisions of Bill S-7.

We do not believe that the creation of a new ground of inadmissibility based on polygamy will help restrict polygamy in Canada or protect women from violence or abuse. To the contrary, we are concerned that it will actually do the opposite.

Bill S-7 states that polygamy will be interpreted in a manner consistent with paragraph 293(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, under which polygamy is now a criminal offence. Since the Criminal Code provisions have been interpreted to include both the husband and the wives involved in such relationships, the IRPA provisions will unfairly penalize women in these relationships, without regard to situations in which a woman may have been forced into such a marriage, have had no knowledge of such marriage, or have been abused.

Under current immigration law, applicants for permanent residency who are polygamous are already barred from entering Canada unless they convert their marriage to a monogamous one. They can aIso found inadmissible for criminality under the IRPA if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that they will practice polygamy in Canada contrary to section 293 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, there are already protections under current immigration law that restrict the entry of polygamous families, and Bill S-7 provides no additional gate-keeping in that regard.

What the bill will do, however, is take away existing protections from permanent residents in Canada, and particularly put women and children at risk by creating a two-tiered system for citizens and non-citizens. Currently, once in Canada a permanent resident can be found inadmissible and be deported if he or she is convicted of polygamy under section 293 and has received a jail term of six months. Permanent residents can be aIso be found inadmissible if they had misrepresented their polygamous status in their PR application.

The creation of a separate ground of inadmissibility based on polygamy will take away from women the opportunity of a criminal trial and the requirement of a criminal conviction. Women will be further jeopardized, as they can be found inadmissible and deported more easily because of the lower standard of proof used in determining inadmissibility compared with the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

lt will aIso expose women to the loss of status in Canada, if their sponsoring spouse is deported on the basis of practising polygamy. The high risk of deportation will therefore make women in abusive situations more reluctant to seek help to leave their relationships and will trap them in those violent relationships.

A woman who comes forward to report abuse may, and also her children may, be deported along with the very husband who is being abusive to her, because of subsection 42(1) of the current IRPA. Under this section, a foreign national is inadmissible if their accompanying or, in some circumstances, their non-accompanying family member is inadmissible, or if they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.

Consider the scenario, for example, in which a woman and her children have arrived in Canada with the husband on a student or work visa and now are awaiting permanent residency from within Canada as dependants in the application. If the husband engages in polygamy and is abusive towards the first wife, reporting the abuse can lead to a finding of the husband's polygamous status and can render the entire family inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could you wind up, please?

[Silmi Abdullah]

Sure.

This scenario illustrates that one of the effects of Bill S-7 will be the removal of the entire family unit and violence within it elsewhere, rather than providing opportunity and support for victims to seek help from abuse and remain safely and independently in Canada.

We therefore respectfully submit that our law should focus on polygamy in a manner that doesn't force women to choose between staying in abusive relationships in Canada and facing abuse outside Canada.

We recommend keeping the current IRPA provisions but aIso recommend amendments to the IRPA and the Criminal Code that would exempt women from criminal and immigration sanctions who may have been forced into polygamy or who were unaware of their husband's polygamous status.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Abdullah and Ms. Witelson, for your presentations.

Ms. Faria, you are last, but you have up to eight minutes.

[Elsii Faria, Consultant, Marketing and Communications, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Elsii Faria. I work as a marketing and communications consultant for various organizations, including the Durham Region Unemployed Help Centre and 1COMMUNITY1.

I also am nearing the end of my term for Welcome Centre Immigrant Services as a community liaison in Ajax and Pickering, Ontario.

The views that I express today are my own. I do not represent any of the views of any organization that I'm affiliated with, in a working relationship or otherwise. I am an advocate for human and women's rights. As a marketing professional, I choose to work with organizations, businesses, or individuals on projects that have the potential to positively impact local, national, or global communities.

I am deeply honoured to serve as a witness in relation to Bill S-7 along with so many important voices and respected members on the witness panel.

I am aware of some of the arguments for and against the proposed amendments to the five federal statutes pertaining to Bill S-7. In terms of predicting the impact of the amendments on the victims and survivors of honour-based violence and early and forced marriage, my perspective is limited to my research, as I do not work with newcomers on the front line. My opinion of the bill and its effectiveness is framed by my own experience and background in providing solutions that target specific objectives.

During the press conference for the announcement of Bill S-7,, there were several instances where I felt Minister Alexander referred to the intention and the objectives of the bill. They are to make sure that immigrant women and girls are protected and not subjected to isolation, disenfranchisement, or violence once they arrive in Canada; and to stand up for the protection, the physical well-being, and the flourishing of women and girls in this country to make sure they reach their potential and that barriers of violence be removed.

I believe that the success of Bill S-7 is directly linked to honouring and carrying out the intention of the bill through a comprehensive, integrated, and holistic approach. In order to effectively deliver the objectives of the bill, amendments to federal statutes should serve as just one aspect of the overall strategy. Further, multi-faceted supports and services are required. Root level solutions should involve education, awareness, and training initiatives for victims, perpetrators, service providers, and Canadian and global citizens. I believe a central repository of information, including promotional and training material, would facilitate the dissemination of information nationwide with varying degrees of access for emergency responders, school teachers, police, the general public, etc. The repository could be used to gather statistical data, which I feel is a crucial component in measuring the effectiveness and determining the resources that are required to support the intention of the bill.

Utilizing a collaborative model with feedback and cooperation from stakeholders is essential. Experts in the field should be consulted to ensure that proposed legislation or other initiatives do not create further obstacles to women experiencing violence. General community support would also assist in meeting the objectives of the bill.

During the press conference for the announcement of Bill S-7, Minister Alexander stated:

[The] response to these issues has to be a team effort, not just by government, not just by settlement agencies, but all of us involved in welcoming newcomers to the country, all of us involved in communication to the families of newcomers.

Last year, I believe Canada reached a turning point in openly discussing issues related to violence against women. Now is the time to rally together as a community to bring awareness to, and prevent, violence against women, including from an immigration perspective.

The manner in which Bill S-7 has been framed has had a direct impact on the public and stakeholder acceptance of the proposed amendments. The title, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, while bringing attention to the subject matter, is fraught with negative associations that I feel veer away from and taint what I believe to be the important objectives related to the bill.

Definitions related to the term “barbaric” highlight the view that another civilization or group is viewed as inferior, savage, or uncivilized. The term serves to propagate fear and pits one culture against another by promoting conflicting and divisive relations rather than peaceful and collaborative ones. In Canada, the term “barbarian” serves to recall a period of colonialism that has had a lasting impact affecting the well-being and the flourishing of aboriginal people. We are now aware that between 1980 and 2012, more than 1,100 indigenous women have gone missing or have been murdered. This could also be viewed as barbaric cultural practices fuelled by racism against native women in Canada.

I believe the title of the bill is inhibiting the real discussion and action that needs to occur in relation to the objectives of the bill. Perhaps the word “violent” should replace the word “barbaric”: zero tolerance for violent cultural practices act.

As for the proposed amendments, it is my view that if polygamy is illegal in Canada, polygamy should not be practised in Canada. However, realizing that polygamy is happening in Canada, the consequences of the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should be considered. How might the amendments impact victims of violence who are currently in polygamous relationships? For reasons of sponsorship or economic factors, a victim's choices for severing ties might be limited. In addition, it has been noted that polygamists seeking to immigrate to Canada may abandon their wives and children abroad in order to do so.

With regard to the proposed amendments to the Civil Marriage Act, I believe the amendments are required and are in line with the objectives, although I am in agreement with Professor Aiken that the age should be raised to 18.

In terms of the Criminal Code, I feel that those participating and aiding in forced or early marriage ceremonies should face repercussions. However, prison sentences for multiple perpetrators could put the children of the perpetrators at further risk and may not be an effective solution for reformation. Exposure to education regarding HBV and EFM counselling and psychological services could serve to inform and potentially reform perpetrators.

I am in agreement with the amendments made in relation to the defence of provocation, however understand and agree with what you have mentioned about provocation being used in the case of women facing abuse. The proposed peace bond process, however, could put victims at risk of further violence as the perpetrator is alerted to future court proceedings.

I am thankful that a dialogue is happening and feel that the only way we can honour and carry out the intention of the bill is through effective and respectful collaboration strategies as well as educational and awareness initiatives.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Faria.

All of you gave excellent presentations and I thank you on behalf of the committee. We are now going to have questions. I'm going to change the rules—because, well, everything has changed this morning it seems—and each of the first rounds, including Mr. McCallum's, will be five minutes each.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today and for your testimonies. Over the past few weeks on this committee we have had the opportunity to hear from some very courageous victims. The study of this bill follows an important study that this committee did on the prevention of violence and the protection of women in Canada's immigration system. But we have heard some very compelling testimony from courageous victims.

So, Ms. Papp, I'd like to begin with you. I want to thank you very much for sharing your story with us today. I also want to applaud you for coming out with your story and ultimately working to make a difference in the lives of victims and potential victims of honour-based violence. You've had the opportunity to travel to the United Nations where you spoke on honour killings and how they differ from other forms of violence. Can you please elaborate on that for this committee?

[Aruna Papp]

There were 6,000 women there, and when I spoke there were women outside in the hallway waiting for me because they couldn't get in. We had to take the furniture out because they wanted to hear. When I was done they said, “Please don't stop talking about it. Where we come from we can't go back if we talk about it. So continue talking about honour-based violence and how it differs from other forms of violence.”

I've just been invited to go to the Netherlands to represent Canada to talk about how it differs. Why do we have to talk about it? It's because the police officers and the social workers who help these women need to know the cultural background and the context because if the risk assessment is flawed, then the safety plans are flawed. We've had a lot of problems with not doing accurate risk assessments.

I know from my experience that I couldn't explain it even when I spoke English because I was protecting my dad, who was a Seventh-day Adventist church pastor. Everybody knew him in Ontario. I couldn't explain why it was more important to protect my dad and my ex-husband and that it was okay for me to die. Do you see what I mean? So, it has taken me 30 years to find those words and say this is how a woman might feel, and this is the question you want to ask her and not perpetuate the guilt and shame that she's feeling. Sometimes service providers don't know that. That's my focus.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Our government has invested considerably in helping newcomers settle in Canada. In fact, we have tripled settlement funding to some $600 million today, in addition to about $55 million for resettling refugees in this country. It is an important component of our immigration policy to assist newcomers and to inform them of their rights now that they are here in Canada.

I understand you produce several training resources for immigrant families and help to counsel them as they deal with domestic violence.

What is the key take-away from your work? You travel across Canada, helping young women as they deal with gender-based and honour-based violence, which very much exists in this country. We've heard it over and over, and of course there is the experience you had in the United Nations with the thousands of women out there. It is obviously a very awful thing that is happening throughout North America.

[Aruna Papp]

The resources that I have produced are being used internationally, and in universities to teach. As well, we are in the process of producing another one on how honour-based violence differs from domestic violence and intimate partner violence, and how the risk assessment.... We don't have appropriate risk assessment tools in Canada or internationally, for that matter. We are working on that, and hopefully it will be ready with the help of the Minister of the Status of Women, as well as Rona Ambrose.

I want to emphasize—and I want to say this again and again—that in the 35 years I've been in this business, Rona Ambrose was the first woman representative of a government who came and said “How can I help you?” That has helped bring this forward to the international community, who are now asking for these tools.

In preparation for the Senate committee as well as this committee, I have been speaking on ethnic television and radio stations and calling women—because I work with the South Asian community and speak three languages—and saying “What do you think?” and explaining to them.

Somebody reminded me on the radio that 30 years ago we started working on domestic violence, and when it was recognized, women got the power to stand up and say “This is the law. You can't hit.”

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe, go ahead.

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

Mr. Sandhu will speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I apologize, Mr. Sandhu, your name is here.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning to study this very important bill.

Professor Aiken, I am going to give you the time to talk about the short title, which you didn't have time to do before.

[Prof. Sharryn Aiken]

Thank you very much.

Indeed, as you have heard from numerous organizations that have appeared before you already, there are various objections to the short title.

It's not to take issue with what Ms. Papp said, that practices that are harmful to women we may understand to be barbaric. I am not taking issue with that. I am not in a camp of being an apologist for violence—not at all. Let's not make any mistake about that. It's rather the pairing of “barbaric” and “cultural” that is the problem, because it seems to imply that the people who are perpetrating harmful practices and/or the victims of harmful practices are somehow relegated to some select cultural communities. As we know, that is a patent falsehood. We know that family violence, domestic violence, wife assault, and other forms of abuse are endemic across Canadian society. They affect newcomers, long-term residents, aboriginal Canadians, and citizens of many generations. They affect Canadians right across the social strata of this country.

That's the problem with the short title. It is suggesting that somehow there are only some communities that we need to be concerned about, rather than dedicating ourselves to eradicating violence everywhere.

The one thing I would particularly underscore in response to your invitation is that if there is any specific focus of where resources are needed for eradicating the harms and violence this bill seeks to achieve, it is in rural and remote communities, where women in particular have far less access to services and support, and yet research suggests that the need for such services and support is much greater because the incidence of at least reported violence is higher.

That's the objection. The bill in effect skews the problem, misrepresents the problem, and is deeply offensive in implying a degree of stigmatization and xenophobia that I really don't think this government should be standing behind.

Thank you.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

In your testimony you pointed out that here is another example of legislation being brought forward with no evidence of it being needed.

Do you think this is a political document or a legal document?

[Prof. Sharryn Aiken]

Well, it is a legal one in the sense that it's a bill with legal measures, but if you're asking me what the impetus for this bill is, it seems most patently obvious in this case that it's about the optics, that it's about politics in its most cynical form. If the government really wanted to put its money where its mouth was on these very serious issues, it would be ensuring that the appropriate resources are allocated to implementing the programs, not to creating a new legal tool kit.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Ms. Aruna Papp, do you think we have enough resources in the communities to deal with domestic violence?

[Aruna Papp]

Not at present, no; we need more.