Evidence of meeting #51 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was security.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
5 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In that case, I will say essentially that I think you're arguing for something that sounds a lot more like laïcité to me, which is a lot more like what European countries have done that have led them to the situation of not being able to accept other communities, whereas Canada is obviously struggling, but I think succeeding, in a sense, to create a secularism where everybody is included. That means that we do need to bring out tensions and we do need to make sure that in the end.... I agree, liberal democracy needs to be withheld, women's rights need to be withheld, for instance, but that isn't something that I think is tied necessarily to shutting out communities or shutting them into themselves, but rather openness.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
5 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you, Ms. Freeman.
I'm now going to Mr. Lamoureux.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mansur, I appreciate your comments. I don't necessarily have to agree with the comments, but I do appreciate the comments. This leads me to a different line of questioning.
Obviously, you're very concerned about multicultural policy. One of the things the government does beyond immigration is it provides settlement moneys. A multitude of programs are provided through settlement moneys. This may be something the government has not been overly successful at, but if we were to look at the settlement programming in terms of how we're spending the settlement moneys, do you think we may be able to deal with some of the concerns that you've highlighted? Perhaps we could look at the value of the education of tolerance in society, for example, and how we could better ensure that people are being provided opportunities in an equal fashion.
Do you think we could be doing a better job in terms of settlement plans in order to make our communities safer places?
5:05 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Sir, we can always do a better job under any circumstances. That's not the issue I'm concerned about.
Until this policy of multiculturalism was introduced, we were a liberal democracy. We are still trying to be a liberal democracy. We have created a situation...and again the Europeans are not confronting it, but we have created a situation here. The implicit premise of multiculturalism is the fundamental philosophical issue we are dealing with. The fundamental premise of multiculturalism is collective identity, because it says all cultures are equal, which is a flatly untrue statement. All cultures are not equal. You cannot equate liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is not a colour issue, by the way. I think that's where people get confused. Liberal democracy is a fundamental issue premised on individual rights. Historically, a liberal democratic system has best dealt with the vaguest contradictions in bringing about a good society.
We can deal with all the problems that arise by eliminating the argument that we have imported into our own makeup as a society that all cultures are equal. That leads to all sorts of consequences.
That's why I said history is a paradox. We can consider any situation and it is the unintended consequences that flow. I would remind you, and I have written about this extensively, that our late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, during his last visit to these hallowed halls, expressed regrets when he was asked a direct question about his thoughts on multiculturalism as the father of official multiculturalism.
These are footnotes that you can go through.
The paradoxical result has been that we have been stripping away the fundamental rights that exist in a liberal democracy. No right is more fundamental than the right of free speech. We have contorted things and created all sorts of problems. We're going to make even more problems as the numbers grow, because our political institution tries to adapt to those numbers. We try to accommodate those numbers and we are then held to those numbers. That's the nature of politics. It is nothing new that we are inventing, especially in democratic politics.
It's all about numbers. The numbers are going to lead to things evolving in a certain way. We are already seeing the signs of that evolution taking place.
The problem with the Islamic world has been the global challenge that came at the beginning of the 21st century with 9/11. It's not going to phase out so quickly. It's a historical challenge, just as the challenge of communism was throughout the 20th century.
When you raise the question about expenditures, maintenance, health care, and so on, we will need those resources. We will need those moneys. We will need to keep our economy going.
I come back to the fundamental nature of our society. There is that paradoxical relationship between where we are in terms of a multicultural society and a free and open country with the levels of immigration, the numbers. Within a generation the two things will lead to circumstances that I'm inviting you, because we send you here to represent us, to look at. This is not a hypothetical matter. This is a matter of being able to clearly forecast where we are headed. We are headed toward dangerous problems. Europe is already showing us where we are headed.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Sorry, Député Lamoureux, your time is up. Thank you.
We're now going to go to Député Opitz.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Sir, in terms of multiculturalism, I would also point out that Senator Paul Yuzyk and Prime Minister Diefenbaker had a great deal to do with it at the time. This is a great discourse, but I think we need to re-vector to the real discussion here today, and it's Canadian security in our immigration system.
We talked earlier about incidents where somebody has arrived in this country multiple times, been deported multiple times, has come back, performed criminal acts, and so forth. That's a hole in our security, clearly. Some of the biometric data we'd like to put in place, including information sharing with our allies, will assist us in being able to identify those people who are undesirable in Canada or are actually coming here potentially to do harm to this country under fraudulent means.
There are biometrics now. Here's my Nexus card. I love this thing because you get in and out of the airport very quickly. You're identified: the retina scan, the fingerprint scan, my photograph, which is really unflattering. It's very useful.
I would like your thoughts on the security apparatus, the things we need to put in place, as Mr. Menegakis earlier referred to, as an entrance and exit strategy, so we know the people who are coming in and out of Canada. Can you comment on those things, sir?
5:10 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Briefly, we need the technological inputs we can get, and we need to put them in place. The dilemma is, as the previous witnesses pointed out, the question about our legal obligation, our constitutional obligation to the individuals on one side of the equation, and on the other side of the equation, exactly as you have mentioned, is the concern about our security, people who want to do us harm, which is quite evident. How do we go about it? How do we balance those things? I would weigh in on the security side, given the nature of the world we are living in and the nature of the threats that exist.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
I agree, and I think we need to be able to identify people categorically through photographs and tombstone data. This is very useful.
In terms of information sharing, what is your view of the databases that are shared? Should they be a 100% solution? I don't think there is one. I mean, data are only as accurate as the inputs and are subject to correction, no matter where you are.
What's your view on sharing data between allies, sir?
5:10 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
It depends upon who you're sharing with. I think we need to share with other democracies, and we trust and demand that they keep those data secure. But if you're sharing data with non-democracies, much of the threat that we are talking about, which is below the surface—we don't want to put it in words—is from areas that are non-democratic societies. The problem will persist. How do we share those data with non-democratic societies, knowing full well that these are societies that have no respect for their own people? We are watching what is happening on a daily basis.
Those are concerns. We as a democracy take our responsibility seriously. We can only go as far as our responsibility goes, but on the other side it will be simply a matter of prudence and pragmatism.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Now, would biometrics technology be enough here, or would other methods...? For example, in Israel, they use pre-screening methods to identify everybody who is boarding a plane before they depart or enter Israel via an Israeli airline.
Is there something we can do? Should we implement similar procedures?
5:10 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Well, the quick answer is that this is the paradox. We put a high-tech instrument in place and we assume that will solve our problem. The ultimate is human intelligence.
So on the Israeli issue, they have the most modern technology, to the extent that I have travelled in Israel, but the human intelligence is also immensely good. Ultimately it's the human intelligence side that becomes in some way the critical issue.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Well, the sources we deal with about security, the people who can come and talk to you. Here I am, sharing information with you, information that we can provide. Our state and its people can reach out and keep tabs on the information that comes to them. I think that's...and the confidence that the people feel to come out and share the information.
I don't have to tell you, sir, about the way the Toronto 18 was cracked, and so many others have been cracked that we do not know about because, again, the dog never barked. And the reason the dog never barked is because human intelligence prevented the dog from barking.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
My apologies: you actually have two more minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Yes.
Actually, that's an interesting observation. Our previous two witnesses...well, one in particular, who was sitting in your chair, argued about the fact that by keeping all of the records that we do, we can't really prove whether we've actually kept out somebody bad. I think you're actually presenting the other side of that argument, which is, as you know, that it's very hard to judge who we may have kept out, because the last thing CSIS, or for that matter in terms of a North American agreement with the United States.... The public acknowledgments of those who we've kept out are not necessarily those that we should make public.
5:15 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Right.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I think you're making a pretty strong argument that, with respect to security, we do need a certain semblance of order and specifics around what that intelligence collection is all about. I guess I'm just giving you an opportunity to pursue that a little further, maybe, in terms of acknowledging that, look, we need a system in place that is going to have its checks and balances in order to keep our country safe.