Evidence of meeting #33 for Status of Women in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was platform.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you. I appreciate that.
It's basically ways of diminishing somebody that are not necessarily overt.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I have one question for clarification before I hand over to my colleague Ms. Damoff.
Ms. Rico, you mentioned in your statement that the Immigration department had gender-based analysis and that this section no longer exists. We just did a gender-based analysis study and we actually pointed to immigration as one of the success stories. I wonder if you could let us know what you meant by that.
November 21st, 2016 / 5:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Council for Refugees
In 2002, there was a whole gender-based analysis unit, with communication with the NGOs such as CCR, and also with organizations that work with women. That's when we presented. If you remember the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, there was a paper that did a gender-based analysis in relation to the IRPA.
As time passed, the unit was reduced, and in the last few years the unit didn't have any impact. We knew there had been one person, but there isn't anyone now. If you see the conditional permanent residence that was implemented by the government, it didn't have any gender-based analysis. As well, on the family reunification, there is a regulation that, if for any reason the person didn't include the name of a child, that child cannot come back to Canada; that is section 117.
When we do the gender-based analysis, we ask why they didn't include them. It could be misinformation, but also, especially in the spousal sponsorship, it could be the husband who filled out the forms. Sometimes they don't include the children because they have to have a certain income when there are children involved. With the spousal, you just need to prove that you have an income.
I can give you more examples of there being no gender-based analysis. For example, in the refugee reform, with the short time limits now, where the refugee hearing will be in two months, they haven't considered the most vulnerable people, especially women who come with husbands and the husband had been the abuser. After the refugee hearing, they listen only to the principal applicant and he is the man. There is no space for a woman to come and bring the violence or the abuse, and sometimes they are deported back and the abuse continues in the country of origin.
Also, there is the ban they put on the pre-removal risk assessment and on the humanitarian and compassionate grounds for one year. That's also a result of there being no gender-based analysis, because sometimes when the person receives the pre-removal risk assessment, the woman can speak up and bring up the violence, because she has been living here in Canada. Sometimes she has been looking for support. She might have the police involved, or church support, or community support that she didn't have in her community and she can speak out. That's why I say that in the last changes we didn't have a gender-based analysis, and we need to bring that back.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Marilyn Gladu
Excellent.
Unfortunately that's the end of our time today, but I want to thank all our witnesses for doing an excellent job.
You've heard the questions. If there are things that you think you'd like to share with the committee, I invite you to send your comments to the clerk and we certainly would review them. Thank you again for your time and for all the work that you do.
The meeting is adjourned.