Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for initiating this debate.
I want to change the tone of the debate a little, first because it should be non-partisan and, second and more important, because there are lessons to be learned from this debate. I have heard a lot of congratulatory comments tonight about how Canada is different, how in Canada we have had this incredible tradition of bringing in immigrants and refugees, and that we have always done it. While it is true that in the last few decades we have had a very good tradition of bringing in immigrants and refugees to this country, that has not always been true.
I got into federal politics from municipal politics a few years ago. Why did I do so? One of the important reasons was Quebec's charter of values. The separatist government in Quebec put forward a law that said that, as a mayor, I had to fire people because they were going to wear a kippah, a hijab, or a turban to work. In my conscience and the conscience of my council in the city of Côte-Saint-Luc, we could not do that. We held a rally for religious freedom on the steps of our city hall, bringing together people and religious leaders from all faiths to say no, because that is not Canadian.
The fact that we lived this only a couple of years ago in my home province of Quebec means that Canadian governments, provincial governments, and politicians are no different here from politicians elsewhere. People can always capitalize on xenophobia. People can always spark fear in the population.
We are so lucky to live in a country where all three major parties share the view that Canada is a place where immigrants and refugees should be welcomed and that we should care about people, whatever their race, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. We should all be happy about that.
When it comes time for me to talk about the U.S. executive order, which is the subject of the debate, I want to first say that, of course, as quasi-Americans, since we all watch U.S. TV, listen to U.S. pundits, watch the election campaign with the same intensity that our colleagues down south did, we also have to remember that we are not American and we do not have the rights that the people in the U.S. do to choose their president.
While I am profoundly shocked by what is in this executive order, it is an American decision. I applaud the protestors at airports, I applaud those in Congress who are fighting this, and I applaud those who are going to court, but I want to look at this executive order as if somebody proposed it in Canada and then comment on it as if a Canadian politician proposed this.
What are the things we should learn about this order? Number one, one does not put forward executive orders without consultation. One does not forget to ask the state department and the people who work there, who are the experts, what the ramifications are of an executive order. One does not forget to ask the attorney general, who has to defend an executive order in court, whether it complies with the constitution or laws of one's country. One does not forget to consult with the enormous number of stakeholders who would be concerned with such an order. I hope that in Canada, before our executive acts, it will always consult with Parliament, parliamentary committees, and other groups that have interest in it before taking action.
Number two, one cannot put forward executive orders that impact people who are already in transit with valid visas issued by oneself. Orders should not be made retroactively. People have a right to depend on government laws being in place for a period of time and the right to travel without wondering if, when they get to their country with which they have a visa, they are going to be excluded.
Number three, one does not discriminate based on country of origin or religion, when making law. One does not say that just because people are born in one country, are citizens of only one country, or come from only one religious group because there is an exemption for those who are from religious minorities, they are excluded from a country. That is not what I believe in, and I do not think any of us do.
This is where I want to draw our history to everyone's attention. We have to remember that we in Canada have done this, as has the U.S. in the past. There have been many times in our history when the United States has been more welcoming than Canada. We should not congratulate ourselves on just being better than everyone else. There was a period of time when Chinese were excluded from the right to immigrate to Canada. So were other Asians, Sikhs, Hindus, and people from all over Asia. Eastern Europeans were discriminated against. Southern Europeans were discriminated against in the 1920s and 1930s.
I come from the Jewish community. We all remember that when the Jewish community needed Canada the most, in the thirties, when Hitler was in power, the doors of Canada were closed to Jewish refugees. Irving Abella's None is Too Many is a wonderful book that explains what happened; but let us talk about the process of the St. Louis.
The St. Louis was a ship that came out of Hamburg in May 1939 with people who had valid visas to Cuba. They were celebrating. They were going to be saved from what was happening to them, being persecuted in Germany. Yet, when they arrived in Havana harbour, Cuba unilaterally changed its rules and invalidated what, until then, were valid visas for these immigrants coming to Cuba. That is what happens when we retroactively change things. Cuba denied entry, and so the ship steamed up toward the United States, with the hope that the United States would open its doors; but the United States did not open its doors. Then there was just one hope before they went back to Europe, and that was Canada—and Mr. Blair and Mr. King closed the doors of Canada to those refugees.
I hope one day a Canadian government will apologize for what happened with the St. Louis.
We have to remember that this can happen here. Coming to the end of my speech, one of the things I want to say is that we should always remember that this could happen here. We have to be vigilant.
Second, we have to look at what happened in the order. I think the government acted appropriately by clarifying, immediately, that Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada should not be affected by the order. That was the appropriate first thing to do.
Then we have to look at whether we increase the number of privately sponsored refugees or allow more refugees into Canada as a result. I think the government should be open to considering raising the number of privately sponsored refugees. I think the total number of refugees would have to be an international agreement because we cannot, unilaterally, react to what one country does when we are just one small country of the globe. I think we should be talking to our international counterparts to see if there is an international action.
With respect to the safe third country agreement, I want to say that I have looked into this and I do not see where, right now, somebody could be impacted by being refused entry to the United States as a refugee, having reached the shores of the United States, and then come to Canada—that is where this would apply. The minister has an obligation to look at all four pillars of the agreement on an ongoing basis. I am assuming that he will. If we see the United States actually refusing people who reached its shores according to international conventions from being considered to be refugees over the next 120 days, I am confident the minister will react. At this point, what I understand from the United States is that it is not acting that way to people who reach its shores, but it is something important to consider.
I thank the NDP for raising this issue.