Yes. I agree, sir—
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.
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.
5:15 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Yes. I agree, sir—
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Well, I agree. I mean, we need to have the checks and balances in place, the human intelligence is extremely important, and all of us know that the demand side is far greater than the available resource side. So how do we cut the resources for all the demand that is out there?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you very much.
I'm now going to Députée Sitsabaiesan.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mansur, thank you for coming in today.
I for one believe that Canada's multiculturalism is something that Canada and Canadians take pride in. I represent one of Canada's most diverse ridings. It's something that constituents have told me time and again: how much they value our multicultural heritage. Over 90% of my constituents are actually considered new immigrants or immigrant populations. Canada's multiculturalism supports feelings of pride, respect, and connection to one's culture and heritage, which of course furthers newer immigrants' sense of pride in their new home, Canada.
Myself, I am a Canadian of Tamil heritage. As you said yourself, I am not a hyphenated Canadian; I'm a Canadian. But I also value my heritage and feel that it adds a lot to me, to my identity, and to what I will be leaving for my children, my grandchildren, and my community. I know that I have been able to make a bit of a contribution, and I will continue to make much more of one because of that heritage that I understand, know, and am proud of.
Multiculturalism protects one's ability to act in accordance with one's cultural beliefs or practices, but of course within the limits of the law. We know—as in some of the examples that my colleague mentioned earlier—that oppression exists within all cultures and countries. Racism, sexism...these are why we have laws to protect people in our country.
With a history of discriminatory policies like the residential schools, of course, or the Chinese head tax—exclusionary policies—I don't believe this is something we should be doing. This is probably not the direction we want to be heading in with our immigration policies in the future: further exclusionary policies or discriminatory policies like the Chinese head tax.
My question for you relates to what many Auditors General have mentioned. One after the other they have stated that there are serious flaws with how our current immigration laws are administered. Officers have no idea who should be coming to Canada, as they do not have specific or enough information to make an assessment on the admissibility of applicants. Additionally, there is a lack of performance reviews, of guidance, and of training provided to officers who are making these decisions.
Do you have any comments on the Auditor General's recommendations?
5:15 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
No, I don't have any comments.
Your preliminary remarks I share with you, but we have different conclusions in terms of your preliminary remarks. You come from Sri Lanka. I was born in India. If there's any country that is multicultural, if you want to talk about it, it is India, with a billion people and the diversity that we talk about—
5:15 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
I said the “preliminary remarks”.
On the secondary part, it's an ongoing problem. It's an ongoing problem of our bureaucracy. It's an ongoing problem of our institutions. Because we are a multicultural society, the people who are going to man those systems are constantly going to be facing the dilemma of how they adjudicate between people coming in and how they keep the country secure.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
—just because I have one and a half minutes left.
The question was directly about the Auditor General's recommendations because this is a study on security and with respect to immigration policy. You don't have anything, really, to add to that, so I'm going to move on, if I may.
I have a second question. Individuals from countries all over the world have resettled here in Canada—like you and me. New Canadians are I believe an integral part of the prosperity of our country and our communities. Their contributions to the success of communities like Scarborough, where I live and which I represent, are vast and wide-reaching.
It's my belief that immigration is integral to our economy, locally as well as nationally, and to the development of our communities. Would you agree with that?
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Not necessarily.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Well, again, the question is, how do we define our national interests? If you're talking about it as it's geared to economics—that immigration is necessary for economic growth—then what about when there are economic downturns, when there are serious economic problems?
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Are you, as a member and as a Parliament, ready to also retrench the numbers?
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
If I may.... Sorry, but I know I have 20 seconds.
Statistics Canada actually says that within the next five years or something Canada is going to be dependent—the labour shortages—almost 100% on newer immigrants for the labour needs in this country. Are you saying we should stop immigrants from coming into this country? Then we won't be able to fill the labour needs in this country.
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Well, you're giving me a 30-second answer to your question.
These are full of falsification issues. All these studies can be contradicted by other studies, so you're making a selective issue of one particular study.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
I could cite you Grubel's and Grady's study—
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I was just citing Statistics Canada facts.
Sorry, Chair. Thank you.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you. We have a number of speakers yet.
We'll go over to Députée James—I'm practising my French today.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you also to our guest, Salim Mansur.
I'm going to tie this.... We've gotten off track a little bit during this session, and I want to speak specifically to what Canada is doing and what we can do better to screen people coming into Canada.
I'm just going to give you an example of one particular case in which I think our current asylum system has failed Canadians. When I first read about this particular case, I was outraged. I'm just going to read this for you. It has to do with a gentleman named Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, who carried out terrorist acts with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Despite his connection to terrorism, he has been able to remain in Canada since 1987.
Because of our current system, with the ability to seek judicial appeals on I guess deportations and so forth, he has actually cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million. Now, when I think about this case, I cannot think of a better example of how we as a government and as a society have failed the Canadian population—the Canadian taxpayers—and also really hindered the safety and security of our nation.
We got a little bit off track, but I'm just wondering what you can recommend to us—to the government—as to what we can do to correct the flaws in our current system for screening and how we can prevent this type of thing from happening again. How can someone be here since 1987 and still be fighting deportation?
5:20 p.m.
Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
As a Canadian, I feel insulted that people who have broken all sorts of laws are still living off the taxpayer portion. I am a taxpayer, just as I'm a Canadian, so I feel insulted. I think a majority of Canadians feel the same way. The quick and short answer is that once the legal processes had been exhausted, he should have been deported.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
When it comes to screening, I know you've probably heard that we're implementing biometrics and things. Would you agree that biometrics would certainly help in a case like this if there were a known record on this gentleman? Certainly, with biometrics, once he leaves Canada, he won't be allowed to come back in.