CIMM Committee Report

Supplementary Opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada

The Liberal Party of Canada is deeply concerned that the Committee chose to ignore important evidence given by experienced and learned witnesses during our lengthy study into the protection of women in the immigration system.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration undertook this important study on how “to strengthen the integrity of the Immigration Spousal Sponsorship Program.”[1] Its final report entitled, Strengthening the protection of women in our immigration system, makes a number of substantial recommendations with which the Liberal Party agrees. However, It ignores the large body of evidence that the recently introduced conditional permanent residence program for spousal sponsorships may, in fact, be increasing the risk some women face when they first arrive in Canada.

Domestic violence is a serious issue and it deserves treatment by this Committee and by our government. Liberals are concerned that the government is more concerned about symbolic acts rather than real policies that are designed to prevent the abuse of women in our immigration system.

Any proper analysis of the spousal sponsorship program requires the unpacking of a number of related, but different, issues. In writing this report, the Committee was forced to consider the issues arising from proxy marriage, arranged marriage, forced marriage and marriages of convenience.

Liberals believe that forced marriage should be considered a violent, coercive act against its victim. All members of the Committee, and all witnesses we heard from, share this view. Members of the Committee also expressed their concern that the spousal sponsorship program was being abused through marriages of convenience – whereby some people were immigrating to Canada fraudulently.

The challenge that the members of the Committee and the government face as policy makers is to find policies that will effectively combat the abuse of our system and the abuse of those within our system without unduly punishing those seeking to legitimately be reunited with their spouses. In fact, this contradiction was raised by Professor Audrey Macklin who had concerns that some policy measures may have the unintended consequence of preventing those with legitimate marriages from sponsoring their spouses.[2]

For anyone who watched the Committee’s hearings during this study they will notice that any concerns regarding conditional permanent residence are absent from the Committee’s report. Conditional Permanent Residence applies in some cases of spousal sponsorship. In effect, the sponsored spouse’s permanent status in Canada is conditional for 2 years. If the relationship breaks down during that time the spouse may be deported.[3]

The Committee’s report does explain some of the complications of this system.  Many new immigrants are unaware of Canadian laws regarding domestic abuse. They may also be unaware of the support available to partners facing domestic violence. However, the Committee fails to address the perverse affect that the conditionality of a recent immigrants permanent residence can have. Numerous witnesses, many of whom have first-hand experience helping the victims of domestic violence, were opposed to the conditional permanent residence policy.

This was explained very pointedly by Alia Hogben at during our hearings:

“Those of us who have worked in the field of violence against women know that for many women, educated or not, independent or not, self-confident or not, it is extremely difficult to come forward to report abuse and violence. Imagine how much more difficult it is to speak out for a newcomer in the precarious situation of a conditional permanent residence.”[4]

Therefore the Liberal Party Recommends:

That the Government eliminates the Permanent Condition Residence requirement for spousal sponsorships.

In its report, the Committee refers to the Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) immigration category as a means for abused spouses to seek permanent residency.  However, the Committee chose to ignore the evidence from witnesses the H&C program is plagued with long wait times and a very low success rate.

Heather Neufeld stated:

“I will also mention very quickly that another problem we're seeing is that when women are in the sponsorship process and the sponsorship is withdrawn while in process, the women who are experiencing domestic violence will find themselves without approved sponsorship and without a route to permanent residence. The humanitarian and compassionate process is ill-suited to deal with those cases.”[5]

Further, Avvy Yao-Yao Go, also added:

“Even though, in theory, officers are supposed to be sensitive to the issue of violence, we have seen cases where violence has been proven and yet the women are still being denied landing in those kinds of situations. I would recommend a special program be created to address these issues to allow these women to stay in Canada in those kinds of situations.”[6]

It is clear that the H&C program is not prepared to handle these incredibly sensitive cases in a timely and effective manner. As a result, the Liberal Party recommends:

That the Government create a route through which spouses who are the victim of domestic violence can apply for permanent residence in a timely and efficient manner.

The Liberal Party takes these matters seriously.  We are deeply concerned that the Committee chose to leave out important evidence that would help provide important context and information to those seeking to learn about how we can further protect women in our immigration system.

Finally, we would like to thank the witnesses who came forward to testify and to the House of Commons and Library of Parliament staff, for without whom, the Committee would not be able to function.