Witnesses shared many recommendations with the Committee concerning measures the federal government could take to ensure vulnerable sponsored spouses are protected and have the skills they need to succeed independently. The recommendations can generally be grouped into the following categories: inform sponsored spouses, change spousal sponsorship program requirements and processing procedures, ensure an effective route to permanent residency for abused spouses, and ensure spouses have the settlement services and other supports they need. Witnesses also brought to the Committee’s attention international best practices dealing with some of these issues.

A. Inform Sponsored Spouses of their Rights, Status, and How to Seek Help

Witnesses before the Committee shared the view that providing sponsored spouses with greater information would reduce their vulnerability to violence and help them escape abusive relationships. Specifically, witnesses felt that sponsored spouses should be better informed of the following:

• the terms of the spousal sponsorship program, including clear language on the sponsored spouse’s immigration status and grounds for removal (if any);
• what behaviour constitutes violence against women, which is illegal in Canada;
• other illegal and not tolerated treatment of women in Canada, including female genital mutilation and all forms of “honour”-based violence;
• Canadian laws in the areas of women’s equality, rights and freedoms, spousal child access, family law rights, common law property rights; and
• how to contact police and social service agencies in the event of abuse.

Witnesses also stressed that sponsored spouses subject to conditional permanent resident status must be informed of the exception to the cohabitation requirement and how to request consideration for an exception.[84]

Many proposals were also shared on the best options to ensure that sponsored spouses receive the above mentioned information. Most witnesses stressed that, in order to ensure understanding is achieved, the content should be provided in the woman’s language of origin. Some witnesses pointed to the need to provide this type of information while the woman is still in the country of origin,[85] while others focused on the post-arrival period, or both.

Witnesses suggested that CIC could distribute a booklet or information package, and could require the spouse and sponsor to sign a document attesting that they have received and understood the information.[86] Others proposed in-person information sessions; several witnesses thought these should be mandatory, as a requirement for obtaining a permanent resident card.[87] Another idea was a mandatory check-in with the sponsored spouse every six months by CIC or a designated agency.[88] Ms. Kamateros presented the idea of an audio or video tool for illiterate women that could be shown during an in-person meeting.[89] Ms. Virk reported the suggestion proposed during a focus group conducted by her organization: a centralized help line like 9-1-1 to learn about rights and laws in Canada.[90] Some witnesses pointed to the information provided to immigrants in other categories – such as live-in caregivers or federal skilled workers – as good examples for information that should be provided to sponsored spouses.[91]

Several witnesses suggested that it was equally important for sponsoring partners to be well-informed of their rights and responsibilities under Canadian law, either through an information session[92] or through a document the sponsor would be required to sign (written in his language of origin).[93]

A couple of witnesses thought that women should be tested or rated using a points system on their understanding of the above-mentioned rights and “Canadian values.”[94] Another suggested that newcomers should have to sign a contract indicating that they would abide by Canadian values.[95]

Finally, Debbie Douglas, of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, recommended “a national campaign to build awareness and education on preventing violence against women, including forced marriage.”[96] This campaign would be targeted to service providers of all types, including those working with immigrants and refugees in shelters and housing, in health care, law enforcement, immigration, social work, and in the community.

B. Change Spousal Sponsorship Program Requirements and Application Processing

In the course of the Committee’s study, the question was raised as to whether the vulnerability of sponsored spouses to abuse could be mitigated through the introduction of minimum requirements in the areas of age, official language skills and/or education. All of the witnesses who addressed the issue of age were in favour of increasing the minimum age for spouses for sponsorship from 16 to 18 years old.[97] They thought that such a change would reduce sponsored women’s vulnerability and act as a disincentive for families overseas to force their daughters into early marriage.[98]

On the issue of requiring sponsored spouses to meet minimum requirements for official language capability and/or education and skills, witnesses were generally opposed.[99] They pointed to evidence showing that women may still be vulnerable to abuse despite being fluent in English or French, highly educated, and skilled. Even while acknowledging the importance of speaking an official language, witnesses felt that the appropriate way to achieve this goal was through language training rather than requiring language proficiency as a condition of sponsorship.[100] These witnesses felt that introducing such selection criteria would pose a barrier to family reunification while not reducing women’s vulnerability.[101] Some witnesses also felt that it was inappropriate for the government to put in place regulations that may interfere with the personal choices of Canadians and permanent residents concerning who they might marry.[102] However, Raheel Raza, of the Council for Muslims facing Tomorrow, stated a different opinion, saying, “I support the idea of people coming to Canada having language ability because that is the only way that potential victims will be able to know their rights and more importantly to access them.”[103]

Several witnesses recommended changes to the processing of spousal sponsorship applications that would, in their opinion, reduce sponsored spouses’ vulnerability to abuse. Noting that sometimes relatives complete the application form on behalf of the couple, lawyer Chantal Desloges recommended that the spousal sponsorship application form be amended to allow for disclosure of assistance in completing the application form, such as from a third party or through the use of an interpreter.[104]

Several witnesses believed that CIC’s scrutiny of the sponsor should be enhanced by conducting interviews either in person or by phone. As Amel Belhassen, of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes expressed:

Furthermore, it is no longer good enough to judge the guarantor by the information they, themselves, supply. It is necessary to meet with them and look them in the eye. That is the person who will be sponsoring the woman. Making a determination on the sponsor should not be limited to reviewing the information in their file.[105]

Lawyer Julie Taub recommended that interviews should be compulsory for spouses subject to the conditional permanent residency requirement.[106]

Finally, a number of witnesses addressed the issue of changing the regulations concerning sponsorship bars. They raised the troubling situation of women who obtain refugee status in Canada on the basis of domestic violence and later apply to sponsor the abusive partner for family reunification.[107] Introducing a sponsorship bar for these situations, argued Ms. Desloges, would relieve the woman “of the family pressure to sponsor someone she probably doesn’t want to sponsor in the first place.”[108]

Ms. Mattoo addressed the five-year sponsorship bar imposed on formerly sponsored individuals introduced as part of the government’s reforms to address marriage fraud. She suggested that this bar should not be applied to sponsored spouses who have been abused.[109]

C. Provide an Effective Route to Permanent Residency

Many witness recommendations were directed toward the role that immigration plays in exacerbating sponsored spouses’ vulnerability to violence and the inability to escape violent situations. Solutions were proposed for sponsored spouses with conditional permanent residence and for those being sponsored through the in-land sponsorship process.

1. Conditional Permanent Residence for Certain Sponsored Spouses

In relation to conditional permanent resident status, some witnesses identified implementation concerns and made recommendations to improve the program. Many others, however, were opposed to the conditional permanent residence program for sponsored spouses and recommended that it be withdrawn. While many of them recognized the policy goal of combatting marriage fraud as legitimate, they suggested that the potential harm to women outweighed any possible benefits in terms of achieving this goal. These different witness positions are explored in more detail below.

Those witnesses who addressed how conditional permanent resident status has been implemented spoke primarily of concerns related to accessing the exception provided in the Regulations for situations of abuse and/or neglect. Some of the issues raised were of a practical nature. For instance, Ms. Neufeld, in sharing the experience of front-line workers trying to help women request the exception, identified the need for a CIC phone number answered in person, for telephone interpretation, and for alternative means of submitting a request. On the issue of the CIC phone number she explained:

… if you’ve ever tried to call the CIC call centre, as we have many, many times, usually you don’t reach anyone or you stay on line for a very long time, and then the phone hangs up on you. Now if a women is in a domestic violence situation and she needs to call CIC, explain her situation, often she’s not able to stay by a phone for hours to keep trying to call. Even if she does reach an agent at the CIC call centre, she then has to be transferred to another department, and an officer has to call her back. This is a problem, because there isn’t necessarily a number where the woman can be called back all the time. Women need to be able to access a phone number where they can reach a person who can actually initiate the process with them.[110]

This concern was also reiterated by Ms. Douglas.[111]

Ms. Neufeld also suggested that CIC offer telephone interpretation, which other organizations, such as Legal Aid Ontario, have implemented. She suggested that sponsored spouses may not always have adequate English or French language skills to navigate a call as currently provided. Further, Ms. Neufeld suggested that some of the phone call problems could be avoided if third parties such as non-governmental organizations or lawyers were able to submit an exception request electronically or by mail on behalf of a sponsored spouse.

As is perhaps expected with a relatively new measure, a number of witnesses identified the need for CIC officers to be trained on conditional permanent residence status and the exceptions provided in the Regulations.[112] These witnesses reported that officers are not always aware of the correct information, despite the Operational Bulletin 480 on the domestic violence exception. This has led to women receiving wrong and contradictory information.[113]

Witnesses’ concerns with the burden of proof for establishing abuse and qualifying for an exception were highlighted in a previous section of this report. Many argued that the burden of proof should be lowered. Professor Christine Straehle pointed to the contrast with the principle of presumed innocence, saying “The suggestion in cases of suspected abuse is that the sponsored woman has to prove her innocence, which is to say she has to prove she has been abused in order not to be penalized for leaving the sponsorship relationship, which is to say in order not to be deported.”[114] Instead, Ms. Straehle recommended, “The burden of proof that there was an attempt to circumvent Canadian immigration law needs to lie with CIC and CBSA”.

In regard to implementing conditional permanent residence as a way to address marriage fraud, Ms. Marshall noted that it “does bring Canadian policy in line with that of many other countries” and stated that “It’s an important deterrent against marriage fraud,” which in turn helps women.[115]

Other witnesses pointed out previously existing tools in IRPA to deal with marriage fraud, such as pre-screening of immigration applicants and enforcement measures (i.e. admissibility hearing, removal) for fraud and misrepresentation and questioned whether conditional permanent residence was a better policy option.[116] Some witnesses called for more evidence to inform this policy decision,[117] while Ms. Hogben called for an evaluation of the conditional permanent resident status policy.[118] Finally, some witnesses took the position that the potential harm that conditional permanent residence caused women outweighed any of the benefits of this policy option.[119]

Offering another perspective, two other witnesses raised the concern that a sponsored spouse could raise false allegations of abuse in order to circumvent the cohabitation condition.[120]

2. Spouses Being Sponsored Through the In-land Process

Witnesses also emphasized that it is important for abused spouses to have an effective route to permanent residency when in-land sponsorship breaks down. Several addressed the inadequacy of the current safeguard for this situation: an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Ms. Neufeld stated that a humanitarian and compassionate application is “ill-suited” to deal with these cases; in particular because the abused sponsored spouse may have difficulty showing establishment in Canada, one of the criterion applied.[121] She indicated that this particular difficulty may be tied to the abuse; due to the domestic violence the woman may not be financially established in Canada, and she may have been isolated and prevented from taking language classes.

To address the situation of this group of vulnerable women, witnesses recommended a direct route to permanent residency. Many witnesses shared this sentiment without a particular solution in mind, saying simply, as did Ms. Kamateros, “We feel that there should be more leniency regarding the cases if there is a case concerned with conjugal violence, there should be an exemption for the victim, and she should be able to stay in Canada and not be deported.”[122] Witnesses also recommended that the government put in place special landing provisions that could be used when CIC officers discover, during the application process, that an immigrant is a victim of forced marriage.[123]

Others recommended changes to the current route for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, suggesting that the first stage of the application be expedited for immigrant women leaving abusive relationships and for mothers without legal status.[124] Mr. Waldman suggested that in cases of women with no legal immigration status who have been subject to abuse, humanitarian and compassionate factors should be considered before any enforcement action – such as detention or removal proceedings – is initiated.[125] Finally, Ms. Long also recommended a solution using existing immigration tools – she proposed that women in this situation be given a temporary resident permit, which would provide them legal status and time to meet eligibility criteria for existing programs, such as the Canadian Experience Class.[126] Lawyer Richard Kurland suggested that victims of abuse should be given conditional permanent resident status.[127]

D. Settlement Services and Other Support to Facilitate Independence

Many witnesses stressed the importance of language training. They explained that, while settlement organizations offer free language training to all permanent residents, often sponsored spouses do not attend. This could be because sponsored spouses are unaware of the settlement services available to them, or because their sponsor (especially in cases of abuse) prevents them from attending the training. To overcome the barrier of awareness and access, some witnesses suggested that sponsored spouses be put in touch with settlement organizations as soon as they receive their permanent resident visa or that they be automatically registered for classes.[128] To surmount the barrier of forbiddance by sponsors, some witnesses recommended that participation in language training be mandatory; Siran Nahabedian, of Shield of Athena Family Services, suggested it could be included as a condition of permanent residence.[129]

A number of witnesses also identified the need to help sponsored women access counselling for the abuse they have experienced. Ensuring that counselling services are available at settlement organizations was raised as one possibility.[130]

Financial independence was raised by several witnesses as crucial both to enabling sponsored spouses to leave abusive relationships and to moving on with their life in Canada after separation. As such, witnesses suggested that counselling for financial independence be part of targeted settlement services offered to sponsored spouses.[131] Others went further in suggesting that financial independence should be incorporated into the sponsorship program design. For instance, the sponsor could be required to set up a bank account in the spouse’s name, which she could draw on.[132]

Finally, witnesses also brought forward recommendations to facilitate sponsored spouses’ employment. Specifically, they recommended that the government provide better pre-arrival information on skills and jobs in demand, implement a national childcare strategy, strengthen the federal Employment Equity Act, and continue to work with the provinces on foreign credential recognition.[133]

E. Recommendations to Address Forced Marriage

A number of witnesses made recommendations to address the situation of forced marriage in particular. In her submission to the Committee, Ms. Mattoo recommended that special protection should be extended to the victims of forced marriages and that victims should be given a thorough assessment of risk along with the humanitarian and compassionate ground assessment. Furthermore, Ms. Mattoo also recommended that CIC should raise awareness in the training of its officers and adjudicators regarding various issues of abuse, especially in cases of forced marriages.[134]

Mr. Khan suggested that forced marriage should be a criminal offence punishable by incarceration.[135] Ms. Mattoo acknowledged that some other countries had taken this approach, but argued that criminalization was not appropriate in Canada at this point due to the “lack of understanding and knowledge of the issue.”[136]

Superintendent Shahin Mehdizadeh of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police also emphasized the importance of training police officers and other front-line support agencies in order to identify and assist victims of forced marriage. He stated,

I am hoping that providing more awareness to the front-line police officers on this issue will provide them with the ability to recognize and assess risks to female immigrants more effectively when responding to situations of alleged family violence and forced marriage. More importantly, an understanding of these issues will provide them with the tools to activate support systems and keep the victims safe.[137]

Other witnesses recommended that Canada follow the approach of peer countries in dealing with forced marriage, as noted in the following section.

F. Experience of Other Countries

As explained previously in this report, Canada applies various measures to deal with situations of spousal violence and abuse within its immigration system. This section provides some insights from witnesses on the policies and practices applied in Canada’s peer countries to deal with violence and eligibility for temporary/permanent residence and forced marriage.

1. Situations of Violence and Eligibility for Temporary/Permanent Residence

As explained above, witnesses suggested that the conditional permanent residence policy applied in Canada as well as in some of its peer countries may increase immigrant spouses’ exposure to violence from their sponsors.

A number of witnesses referred to an alternative policy applied in the United States (U.S.) to minimize exposure to violence for sponsored spouses. As noted by Ms. Neufeld, through the U.S. Violence Against Women Act, “women whose sponsorship has broken down or been withdrawn and processed … [are able] to petition for permanent residence on their own behalf, apart from their sponsor, on the basis of the domestic violence they've experienced.”[138] Both Ms. Neufeld and Ms. Straehle viewed the U.S. self-petition process as preferable to the process available to abused sponsored spouses in Canada, whose recourse is to apply for permanent residence status on humanitarian grounds.[139] Both Ms. Neufeld and Ms. Straehle agreed that, relative to the U.S. self-petition option, Canada’s application process for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds involves “lengthy procedures”[140] and “long processing times.”[141]

Christine Hyndman, of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, spoke of New Zealand’s process for dealing with immigrant spouses experiencing domestic violence, in which victims of such abuse could apply for temporary work or residence visas, for a period of up to nine months, to support themselves in the transition to permanent resident status through priority processing by immigration officers.[142] As explained by Ms. Hyndman, “[f]or the residence category visas, the applicant must have intended to seek residence on the basis of a partnership with a New Zealander, and the partnership must have ended through domestic violence.”[143] As explained by Fraser Richards, with the New Zealand Government, an application for permanent residence in New Zealand through evidence of domestic violence “does not require a criminal prosecution.”[144] Rather, Mr. Richards clarified, “[a]s a basis we can go as low as statutory declarations from independent people who are qualified in the field.”[145] Ms. Hyndman also contrasted the duration required for obtaining landed immigrant status for immigrant spouses who have evidence of domestic violence, stating that “[i]t should be less than a year” to go from the point of being abused and leaving the husband to receiving landed immigrant status.[146]

Ms. Long voiced her support for the New Zealand expedited system of transitioning an abused immigrant spouse to permanent resident status, stating that “If we feel that it's important to allow women who are abused and their children who are with them an avenue to leave their abusers, then it's very important for them to prove in a nurse's report and have a low threshold of proof because it's difficult for abused women to prove abuse.”[147]

2. Forced Marriages

Several witnesses pointed to the United Kingdom (U.K.) as an example for Canada to consider in dealing with forced marriages.[148] In particular, they highlighted the services available to victims and legislation to prevent forced marriages from occurring.

As explained by Ms. Straehle, the U.K. government established a Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) in 2005, which was a joint initiative of the Foreign and Commonwealth office and the Home office. The FMU offers a 24-hour public helpline service for victims of forced marriage, which several witnesses thought Canada should also put in place.[149] Ms. Straehle pointed to the United Kingdom’s Forced Marriage Unit as a best practice for Canada to consider in interacting with potential victims of forced marriage and of sponsor abuse.[150] She reported that this unit follows three principles: “[F]irst, the victim has the right to be believed; second, show empathy and give confidence; and third, place the victim at the heart of the process.”[151]

Several witnesses thought Canada should also consider making forced marriage a criminal offence, as the U.K. has done.[152] Though witnesses did not elaborate on the specifics, information from the U.K. parliament indicates that a bill enacted in 2014 made it an offence “to use violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage without their free and full consent” and also an offence to deceive anyone into leaving the U.K. to force them into marriage.[153]

Ms. Hyndman, of the Government of New Zealand, expressed concerns about the risk of forced marriages in relation to culturally arranged marriages in her country, although she noted that “[t]here are protections in place to ensure the consensual nature of marriage.”[154] Ms. Hyndman noted further that her government’s agencies “are working to increase the understanding of forced marriage and to raise public awareness” through such measures as police staff training on the types of violence commonly associated with forced marriage and specialist police staff to investigate cases of forced marriage.[155]