Debates of Jan. 31st, 2017

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the Speaker for granting this debate tonight. It is a very important debate.

We all owe deep thanks to my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for her tireless work on this issue. Indeed, she and I were emailing all weekend long about the impact of this ban in our ridings and in our country. I am proud that we stand here tonight to challenge this ban as a result of an NDP emergency debate. We take this issue incredibly seriously, as it impacts the lives of so many Canadians, indeed all Canadians, because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

We are here in the House in response to the extraordinary times we find ourselves in. We are here to debate the presidential executive order issued by President Trump prohibiting the travel of all refugees and individuals from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa. I repeat this because it seems to me that there is some confusion among members of the House as to why we are here and why hundreds of people stood out in the cold tonight to join us in our galleries for this very important debate.

We have to let this sink in for a moment, because prior to Friday, I never imagined we would be watching our closest neighbour and ally descend into such a dark moment, seeing our fellow Canadians and their families who are from one of the seven countries struggling under the weight of this ban, a ban that is nothing short of discrimination against our Muslim brothers and sisters from the seven countries. We are not here to discount the good work that the government has done to settle refugees in this past year. No one is debating that good work. We are here to discuss action following the very serious recent executive order from President Trump. Canadians must reject any ban that is based on race, religion, or place of birth. This kind of ban promotes hate and intolerance.

In October 2016, the House of Commons unanimously endorsed a motion introduced by the leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, condemning all forms of Islamophobia. Some 69,742 Canadians signed the petition and are among those who are now calling on us to follow through this very important step with action. They are likely among the hundreds who are sitting right now in our galleries, or who lined up earlier tonight, those who are at home watching us stand up to this discrimination, and the thousands who have flooded us with emails and phone calls since Friday.

I want to give a quote, because tonight, more is being asked of us. It is a quote from my friend, Dr. Maher El-Masri. He is chairperson of the Windsor Islamic Council. He said, “It is no longer enough to denounce Islamophobia. The rise of anti-Islamic sentiment has reached dangerous levels that threaten the very fabric of our society.”

This ban will have a disastrous implication for thousands of innocent travellers and refugees. Canada must step up and do its part.

We have heard many members tonight reference their family members, or in their past, people who have gone to fight for this country, to fight for the freedoms we enjoy, those who went and joined the allied forces in World War II in Europe. A debate took place in this very esteemed place where we now sit, and this was not an easy decision, but Canada made a choice to not sit back, but join the fight. We are now being called upon to do our part once again.

My riding of Essex is on the border with the U.S. We are very closely tied to our American friends and neighbours. Canada needs to secure greater assurances for those travelling to the United States who were born in or have dual nationality with one of the seven countries listed.

Our office in Essex has been dealing with a large volume of calls, emails, and messages from constituents, from early Saturday when the very first implications of the ban were taking place at our borders in Windsor and Detroit. Many people have been affected by this ban. Many professionals in our region cross every day to work and to visit family. They feel targeted and uncertain.

In my riding of Essex, and in particular the town of LaSalle, we have many Canadian families and permanent resident holders who were born in one of the seven banned countries.

This weekend, there was a lot of confusion at our border, and the limited information and directions that were given to our local Canadian border agents was not enough. We were notified that the U.S. officials were not providing the Canadian side with definite instructions, and there was confusion about who could cross. Indeed, people were being denied and returned from the U.S. back to Canada.

Meanwhile, our government was silent. We were searching for answers. We were looking for something. We could not find anything on any of the official government websites. I was up very late on Saturday night with my team in Essex going through these phone calls trying to answer people's questions, calling our CBSA chief in Windsor, calling the U.S. trying to find answers because we simply did not have them. It was extremely frustrating for us and very difficult for those in our region who were directly impacted, because they are dual citizens or permanent residents from one of the seven countries.

It was not until Sunday when I heard the new minister speaking at the press conference and I was pleased to hear the things that he was bringing forward and I was encouraged that we were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, people were being turned back at our border, so no direction was being given. We listened to the minister in that press conference and today again, and we still have no written agreement with our U.S. partner. We do not know what this ban means. We do not know what they intend to do with it, what countries they intend to look at next. We have not sat down and had formal conversations that are necessary between the two countries to ensure that when people want to cross the border, they can do so confidently because that is not the case right now. People are heading across that border uncertain if they will be able to cross, nervous about whether they will be stopped, whether they will be questioned, what will be asked of them. This is not a situation that we can accept at our Canada border or from one of our greatest allies.

As I said, there was mass confusion and in the span of 24 hours we were flooded with individual emails and phone calls from people who were directly impacted. Canada needs additional measures to offer a safe haven for refugees fleeing violence and persecution and who have been shut out by the United States. We saw this across airports. We saw mass demonstrations at airports across the U.S. because people were being refused or detained. I remember watching a five-year-old who had been detained. I watched two senior citizens in wheelchairs who had been detained, because they were from one of these seven countries. To say that this has not had an impact on people yet, it has impacted people in our closest ally, in our neighbour. It will very soon come to impact people in our own country.

However, I hope that we can implement some of the things that we are bringing forward so that we do not have to have someone be impacted, that we can take the approach of being proactive rather than reactive to discrimination. We have all committed to do better. Our constituents and Canadians deserve that.

What can we do? We can lift the 1,000 application cap on privately sponsored refugees and fast-track refugees whose applications in the U.S. were previously approved. We can list hundreds of successful stories of refugees in my riding. I have heard it from all sides of the House tonight, so why not lift that cap and welcome more people into our country who have already been screened and vetted to the highest degree? We can certainly do so with safety. We should partner with our international partners to ensure that this happens. We have private groups that are ready and willing for this to happen.

The government must immediately suspend the safe third country agreement with the United States as we can no longer have confidence that the U.S. provides a safe haven for refugees. The member for Vancouver East has pointed this out repeatedly. This can be done immediately. I have yet to hear a commitment from the government to suspend the agreement to protect the most vulnerable who are caught in this web. These are dark days and we cannot turn our eyes away and pretend that this will not impact us.

In Windsor Essex, as I said, we are very close to our U.S. neighbours and we must stand up for everyone. I want to read a message that I received from one of my constituents: “This discrimination should not go silent. Canada should be a voice for the voiceless. Also grant entry to those that have already received the rigorous vetting and should come to Canada. Please, like so many Canadians, we call for humanity to come back”.

This is the call of Canadians tonight and there are actions that can take place above and beyond what the minister has mentioned so far. Again, we need to push further. This is who we are as a country. We do not sit back and watch this happen to our closest neighbour, to our friends and family. We stand up and say that we defy this ban. It is discriminatory and we will not accept it.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 60 million displaced people in the world today. The NDP has called for more refugees to be admitted into Canada. What is the number the NDP wants to bring into Canada?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to work with the international community. We need to step up to do our part. We have seen the great benefits. Many of us in this very room are descendants of refugees and immigrants. We cannot stand by and watch as people have no place to go. They are being denied by our closest neighbour.

Therefore, a number at this point cannot be attached and should not be attached. Is there ever a number that we reach where we say we have done enough? There is always more to do. Canada is always willing to step up to do more.

However, there is one thing we can do. Private sponsors who have money to bring in and support refugees should be allowed to do so. Get rid of the cap of 1,000 people because that cap is already gone. Canadians are generous. They have big hearts. They are opening up their wallets to help others. We should allow them to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would briefly like to respond to some of the comments made by my friend from London. He does not seem to recall that many of the first refugees who were brought in by the present government had been approved under the previous government. I think he knows that.

I want to comment as well on the question of numbers because the real issue is the cap on private sponsors.

Why would we not allow refugees to come in under the private sponsorship stream when we know these people will have the support of existing communities, people in Canada who want to help and work with them to provide them with support, as well as to support them in the transition to being in Canada? Does it not make sense that we take full advantage of the private sponsorship stream when it is available? That seems advantageous to refugees, as well as to taxpayers, as well as from an integration perspective.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We should lift the cap.

If we have groups of five or if we have private individuals who are willing to put forward the money to sponsor and support new refugees coming to Canada, we absolutely should create a stream for them to do that. There should not be a cap on anyone who is willing to reach out beyond his or her own circumstance to help someone else. This is what and who we are.

This cap needs to be lifted. We need a strong, firm commitment from the government that it will lift the cap and allow privately sponsored refugees to enter our country, in particular, those who are being turned back at the American border. This goes along with the adoption of the safe third country if we do not do something about this issue. Are we waiting for someone to be impacted? Is that what we are doing? Are sitting back and waiting until the first person is denied, the first person is discriminated against, before we step in? We can step in right now, and we should.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the issue of the so-called cap on privately sponsored refugees currently in place. I am speaking strictly in my capacity as a member from Quebec. As the minister explained so well, with regard to groups of five, the Quebec immigration minister placed a cap on this type of sponsorship due to logistics. The Government of Quebec cannot process these applications at this time. It is having a great deal of difficulty processing current applications. It is strictly a matter of logistics. It is not up to the federal government to impose this on Quebec.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding has one of the largest Syrian Canadian populations in Canada. We have embraced and opened our doors and communities to the Syrian refugees who have settled. In fact, other Syrian refugees are leaving other places in Canada to come to Windsor—Essex because of the success we have had. Therefore, we have our doors wide open. It should not be that the group of five has a limit.

There should not be a cap on any private stream of refugee support. The cap should simply not exist if people are willing to put the money forward. The group of five is simply people who cannot afford to do it on their own, so they should be able to come together to do that. There should not be a limit. For one person to be a single private sponsor is more difficult and there are fewer people in our country who can do that than the group of five method. Therefore, we should allow that.

If provinces have particular issues or communities that, for whatever reason, are unable to accept more, that is a different conversation. However, lifting the cap nationally is important.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

In my Ottawa office I have a large portrait of Clemens August Graf von Galen, Catholic Bishop of Münster in Germany from 1933 until 1946. My grandmother lived in Münster during that period and, as a Jewish child, she attributed her survival to the courageous witness of von Galen, whose anti-Nazi sermons created a climate of resistance against the Nazis, a climate in which a child considered undesirable could find refuge.

However, what was striking about von Galen was his steadfast refusal to be a partisan of any side. When the allied military government took over Münster, allied staff were eager to meet with this anti-Nazi bishop whose fame had by then spread throughout the world. However, they quickly became frustrated by the fact that von Galen vigorously denounced what he perceived to be unjust actions of the allied military governments. He strongly opposed the idea of collective German guilt and the forcible removal of German speakers from other countries in eastern Europe. After visiting Rome to be named a cardinal, von Galen visited prisoner of war camps holding Germans in southern Italy and offered to bring messages back to the family members of these prisoners.

Von Galen never would have denied the far greater injustice of Nazi rule, but he understood a moral responsibility to speak out against injustices in all places and in all of its forms. His fight against injustice was not a partisan fight. He protested the injustices of his own people and of other peoples. He would have strongly rejected false moral equivalency, but he also rejected the idea that being on the right side of history was sufficient to justify any abuse. He believed in calling out injustice in every case.

Today, we have a similar obligation, and that is to clearly and forcefully call out injustice. A frank recognition of the injustice represented by the recent executive order in the United States is not to deny the existence of other injustices and the need to say more about them.

Indeed, the Muslim community in Burma faces ethnic cleansing. Muslims in China, along with Christians, Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners, and others face persecution far more brutal than anything imagined by the Trump administration. Suppression of religious freedom in Russia and in Russian occupied Ukraine is now being ignored as both Canada and the U.S. rush toward closer relations with Russia.

The government has yet to act on the ongoing genocide against Yazidis and Assyrian Christians. Christians, Baha'is, and other minorities, including Muslim minorities facing systematic persecution throughout the Middle East and beyond. In fact, in most of the seven countries identified in this executive order, converting from Islam to a different faith is not only illegal but carries a death sentence. Jews are not able to travel to many Middle Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia does not even permit the practice of faiths other than Islam.

The world is seething with injustice and there is rich hypocrisy in the condemnation of this executive order by those who endorse or remain silent about so many other and certainly greater injustices. But the recognition of the existence of worse injustices in no way should derogate from the necessary insistence that the injustice of this executive order ought to be remedied.

Why is this order unjust? This executive order arbitrarily prohibits all people from certain countries from entering the United States, even those already granted status, regardless of their values, their motivations, their religion, or even whether they are a security threat. It is therefore not strictly speaking a Muslim ban as President Trump had initially proposed, but it does sadly prohibit people of all religious traditions from the countries in question, including many persecuted Muslims and other persecuted minorities.

Although the President has a prudential obligation to defend American security, this order is blatantly imprudent in that it arbitrarily discriminates on the basis of national origin, while turning a blind eye to any serious factor indicative of security concerns. This order is unjust precisely because it fails to discriminate between those who may be a security threat on the one hand and those who simply come from certain nationalities on the other. It bars escaping minorities from the countries named and it does not bar the entry of anyone from other countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Qatar, which happen to have been the source of all of the 9/11 hijackers.

This order discriminates on the basis of national origin, while applying no additional security filters to immigrants from other countries. It therefore discriminates without advancing any discernible objectives.

Let us be clear. I do not know if I speak for all members of the House in this sense, but I do not believe in open borders. I believe nations have a right, generally speaking, to defend their borders, to determine their immigration levels, and to screen those whom they may eventually admit. We would not be having this discussion if the American administration had instead sought to enhance vetting procedures which are universally applied.

In our discussions about human rights and about immigration, we must reject false choices. We do not have to choose between calling out injustice in the Muslim world and calling out injustice in the west. We can and must do both. We do not have to choose between open-borders naïveté on the one hand and unjust ineffective policies on the other. We can instead seek to more robustly and directly go after the sources of radicalization while welcoming as many peace-seeking victims of that terror as possible.

Clemens von Galen was a Christian motivated by his faith to seek justice for all, not just for members of his own community. Americans and American conservatives in particular highlight the Christian identity of their nation. Let us therefore underscore that Christianity is not a tribe; it is a creed.

From one of the most seminal texts in the Christian tradition I will read the following:

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

And of course the passage continues.

This is not a call to naïveté. It does not negate the injunction of Christ to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. However, this executive order is neither. It is as wise as a goldfish and appears as innocent as a crocodile. It combines an odd naïveté with every appearance of malevolence. Pushing more frustrated Muslims into the arms of radicals while denying any hope to those desperate to escape will make America less safe, not more.

Christianity is a creed, not a tribe. Similarly, America is a creed, not a tribe. Its creed is its constitution.

As a Canadian, I do believe that Canada is the best country in the world, but I am not embarrassed to speak of the exceptional nature of its republic, indisputably one of the greatest national forces for freedom in human history. It is the idea of America that makes America great. It is the idea of America that will make America great again. That idea, not all that dissimilar from our founding idea, is of a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse society founded on shared values, the values of freedom, democracy, human rights, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law.

Why are we having this emergency debate in this place about an American government policy, when there are admittedly greater injustices in other parts of the world? I believe it is because we all acknowledge the exceptional importance of the United States remaining true to its founding creed and values.

Who among the major powers has the will and the capacity to be a force for justice in a world of rampant injustice? It is not China, not Russia, but only the U.S. in collaboration with a community of nations dedicated to standing for and testifying to our shared values.

The president said in his inaugural address, “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow”. That sounds as if it would be a very good idea.

Christianity is a creed, not a tribe. America is a creed, not a tribe. Conservatism is a creed, not a tribe.

Conservatives believe in facing the hard-nosed realities of the world with seriousness and without naïveté. Conservatives believe in sacrifice. Conservatives believe in universal human dignity and in equal opportunity. Conservatives believe in the rule of law in keeping with a constitutional framework that limits executive power. Conservatives believe in reasoned compassion and in ordered liberty. Conservatives believe that families, communities, and individuals should be able to act in accordance with their natural competencies without the interference of the state. Conservatives believe in religious freedom and in the limits of state power. Conservatives believe in the importance of national security.

Because it is unjust in its imprudence and arbitrariness, because it denies equality of opportunity and universal human dignity, because it is likely unconstitutional because it lacks compassion and invites disorder, because it is an overreach of state power to bar people who already have status from going into the United States, and because it will make America less safe, this executive order is not conservative.

While we implore our American brothers and sisters on this critical question of justice, let us also rededicate ourselves to building a better society here in Canada, one founded on justice, on reasoned compassion, on ordered liberty, and on the pursuit of greater unity in the midst of proud diversity.

In my remaining time I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan's farewell address. He said:

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, as I have mentioned, I have received many phone calls and emails from my constituents, who have expressed concerns about the safe third country agreement. Primarily, what they are telling me is that they want to make sure that Canada remains a welcoming place and that we fulfill our obligations to welcome people to our country.

I would like to ask if my colleague is ready to stand up to people who say that our borders should be screened for Canadian values in a restrictive sense to make sure that Canada remains a welcoming country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to take this opportunity to talk about my choice for the leadership of the Conservative Party in light maybe of what that question imagines. He will do a great job, let me say, but I would not want to go too far down that road.

Let me just say, with respect to Canada fulfilling its obligations, that one of the things that has been touched on throughout the debate tonight is the issue of the Yazidi people. A motion passed in the House. There was debate at that time about the nature of that motion, but, in the end, that motion passed unanimously. It was a commitment in the House to welcome Yazidi people specifically, recognizing the unique victimization that has gone on there as a result of the genocide that has happened to them.

I hope that we will continue to welcome newcomers from all parts of the world and that that will include responding to the motion of the House with respect to Yazidis.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very simple question. The member spoke about Conservative values, Christian values, and, of course, we have heard a lot tonight about Canadian values and our place in the world.

My question is this. In his judgment, would it be useful for the Prime Minister to not simply talk about those values of diversity, which we are all so proud of, but to offer an opinion about the suspension of the American participation in the humanitarian operation and the effect that this executive order will have not only on the U.S. and Canada but on the world? Does the Prime Minister have an obligation to speak up on this matter?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister has talked in general terms about the value of diversity and I think when he says that, he expresses values that we all share. However, there is a question of what the next steps are.

As a member of Parliament, I have not had a problem saying I have grave concerns. It was clearly in a positive, optimistic spirit, not an anti-American spirit at all. I disagree fundamentally with this decision. Yet members of the government, generally speaking, with some notable exceptions, have not been willing to say that. That is a question for them to answer in terms of what is going on.

I do not think there is a problem with clearly expressing our opinion with respect to the issue in a way, again, that is positive and respectful of the relationship. Those disagreements can be mentioned in a way that is respectful.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of the unjust executive order. I certainly agree with that assessment. I would just ask the member how we ought to respond to the consequences of that unjust order. Senator Omidvar suggested Canada should work with our international allies and help refugees who are left in the lurch as a result of the 120-day ban. I wonder what the member has to say to that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been very clear and concrete about this. There seems to be an agreement among the opposition parties that lifting the cap for private sponsorship is one very simple, very sensible step that would make a difference. We should certainly engage in conversation about other options in that context, but that is something very clear and specific that could come out of this conversation.

Again, I have spoken before, as well as others, about the benefits of private sponsorship as a model. It is really a way of communities being personally engaged in the process of welcoming refugees and the kind of solution that I am quite partial to that involves, of course, the co-operation of government, but also individuals being part of that kind of vital activity. That would be one particular concrete step that would make a big difference.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my NDP colleague from Vancouver East for taking the initiative to bring this debate to the House. I also thank the Speaker for granting that request.

It is a timely issue. We are here to discuss the recent executive order by President Trump essentially banning the travel of individuals who come from seven particular countries explicitly based on their place of birth and implicitly because of their race or religion. This debate is an opportunity to stand up and say that we reject policies that target people based on their race, religion, and place of birth. It is a matter of principle. It is also a matter of pragmatism.

We are living in a challenging time. I was in my grade 12 year when the attack on the World Trade towers occurred. It has been a feature of my adult life that there is a sense of fear about terrorism in the world. There have been many debates over the last 15 or 16 years about how the west should respond to those threats. We are living in a time when people are fearful for their jobs and being able to feed their families. In times when there is that fear, we have certainly had political leaders who have played on and tried to ramp up those fears. As that has increased, what would otherwise be legitimate debates about immigration policy, such as how many people should we admit per year, how many refugees should we bring in, what kind of supports we need to provide for them, what are our economic goals, suddenly take on a different tone.

I think part of why we saw so many people show up in the gallery tonight for this debate, why we saw so many people show up for the women's marches on January 21, the day after President Trump's inauguration, and why we saw so many people come out for the vigils last night in response to the terrible shooting in Quebec on Sunday night, is that people are starting to feel that we are at a moment when we witness government or other political leaders playing on those fears and starting to adopt policies that manifest those fears and ruin lives, it is not enough to stand by and just say, as one of the government members said earlier today on the radio, to keep calm and carry on. People are feeling like that momentum has been building for a long time, as political leaders play on those fears for their own reasons, and we are at the point now where we need to stand up and say that enough is enough.

When it is getting to the point that the new President of the United States feels that he can tell people that they are not allowed in a country that has been a beacon of freedom for the world for a very long time based on where they are from explicitly and implicitly because of their religion or their race, it is not enough just to stand by anymore. We need to say no. We need to make it clear that we do not accept that. That is not the world we want to live in. That is not the world I want for my children. We are moving past the point where we say that this individual is a threat, and we have reasons and intelligence for thinking that we need to say no to this particular person coming across our border, to the point where we are starting to say that because these people are simply part of that class of people and come from a certain part of the world, we will not engage with them anymore. There is something wrong with that.

I am from Manitoba. We have had various waves of immigration. One was a Mennonite wave of immigration that came out of the Soviet Union. They were people who were fleeing that government. If we had had the same approach, because the Soviet Union was an enemy of Canada, those people would not have been allowed in because they were coming from the Soviet Union, yet they were people in that part of the world who were being oppressed and who came to Canada to escape that regime. They agreed with Canada that they did not want to see governments behaving in that way. They did not agree with their leadership and wanted to get out.

We have only to look at that and make the comparison to know that this is a terribly misguided policy. To say no to the very people who are fleeing the kind of leadership that we would want to criticize because it does not promote the kinds of freedoms and peaceful living that we believe are important is a terrible mistake. It is a mistake in principle, but it is also a mistake from the point of view of achieving real safety and security for people of the world. This is a bad policy because it inflames the very kinds of tensions that are leading people to want to make war on us, whether in Canada or the United States. That is the importance of this debate.

We have heard a number of people say that we need to resist having a kind of false debate about having totally open borders on the one hand and totally closed borders on the other hand, and that is true. If we put two straw men up against one another in an argument, we are not going to ever get at the truth, because that is not what straw men are designed to do.

We also need to be able to call out when the debate is going well beyond reasonable differences and is starting to inflame those tensions. I mean, we are living in a time when we have a President of the United States who is quite comfortable having his spokespeople go out and say that they have “alternative facts”. The truth does not really matter. I think that is what people are starting to respond to.

I think what we are seeing in these marches are people saying that they have been putting up with that degradation of public debate for a long time, but what is going on now is just wrong. The United States of America has crossed the line between saying that it is concerned about particular individuals and is profiling them and everything else and is taking action, to saying that if one comes from a certain country, forget it. The United States is saying that it does not care about what one believes or why one is trying to leave a country or would want to come to the United States.

That kind of insensitivity to the truth and to people who want to work with them to build a better world is a surefire way to get exactly the opposite of what the United States wants. That is why this kind of policy is wrong. I think it is why Canadians and people the world over have been so concerned and are saying no.

We have seen examples of this kind of attitude taking over in the past, and the results have never been good. We have a long list of embarrassments in Canada. We have succumbed to that attitude, whether it was when we interned Ukrainian Canadians during the First World War, when we interned Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, or when we said no to Jews after the Second World War who wanted to come and settle here in Canada because they did not feel safe at home. These are embarrassments in our history, and it is painful to watch the United States getting to a point where it is going to have a lot to apologize for.

We hope that one day, when Americans give their heads a shake and get a government that can look at what is happening now, they will say that this is not who or what we are and this is not how to build the kind of world we ultimately want.

In this debate, we have been looking to the government to stand up and join with Canadians in saying that enough is enough. We cannot tolerate this idea of alternative facts. They are starting to create policies that are going to lead to a far more dangerous world and are moving in the wrong direction.

One way the government can do that is by taking some concrete action. That is why we have said that if the Liberals want to show that they are on board with all those Canadians who are saying no to this, they could lift the cap on the private sponsorship of refugees. There are a lot of Canadians who want to sponsor refugees, whether they are coming from the United States, because they are no longer permitted, or from other parts of the world. Let Canadians open their arms and provide that generosity.

It is tough to say to our friends that they have crossed the line, but that is when it is most important to have friends who can say that. Suspending the safe third country agreement is the way to do that. That is the way to send that signal.

Another way we can do that is by fast-tracking some of those refugees who have already been cleared by the U.S. government to come to the United States, a country with the best intelligence in the world, and telling them that they are welcome here.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in a time where there has been some confusion, fear among Canadians, and frustration as well, I think we can look to the leadership of our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for the calm and sensible leadership that he has provided, ensuring that Canadians receive the information they need as this fluid situation moves along.

At the same time, our Prime Minister our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and many other members of the government caucus and members on all sides of the floor have stayed level-headed in ensuring that we do our best to ensure that Canadians get that proper information, and at the same time that we espouse the values that we all adhere to, values of inclusion, values of respect for pluralism and diversity and of equal human dignity.

Would the member opposite not agree that it is important to act in such a way when Canadians are wrought with some level of confusion and frustration?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always say it is important to keep a level head, but sometimes we have to do that even while we are saying that something is wrong. I think that is the added message that the government needs to be sending to its counterpart in the United States, that this policy is wrong. It is wrong in principle and it is something we do not agree with. It is something we are sad to see our friend and closest ally adopt.

I think what Canadians want to hear from their government as well is it telling the American administration it is wrong because it will not lead to a safer world. Someone has to deliver that message, and who best but America's closest friend and ally to say that we share the same goals in terms of safety and security, but this is the wrong way to do it and America needs to reverse it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that the people from the farthest riding from Ottawa, Yukon, share the same compassion for refugees through Yukon Cares, the shock and sadness of the executive order, and the horror of the tragedy in Quebec City through a well-attended vigil in Whitehorse.

Yukoners wrote emails. They want to ensure that the response to being turned away, that Canada is generous in the number of refugees that we allow this year, including more than 1,000 privately sponsored refugees, that we help in any way we can, including any needed program changes, and that we evaluate any international agreement to which we are signatory that disadvantages refugees in the United States.

I am proud the Yukoners are showing the same level of love and compassion and generosity as all Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that people in Yukon are on board, and I am willing to bet that at least some of them would like to see the government go further in terms of not just carrying on, on a kind of parallel track, but actually challenging our friend and closest ally to bring out the best in themselves. That is not what is happening right now, and that is why I think members of the government need to go further.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring a message from the people of Courtenay—Alberni. They would also like to offer their condolences to the victims' families and the community that was hit so hard by this tragedy.

The member talked about the important relationship with the United States and the important role we play. When one of our community members steps out of line or does something that is against the values in our community, they count on their friends to stand up and make sure they understand that they have crossed the line.

Our best friends have crossed the line. It is our duty. If we cannot count on our best friends to let us know we have done something that is out of line, then who can we count on?

Obama says the world needs more Canada. Canadians reject any ban that is based on race, religion, or place of birth or promotes hate and intolerance. Canada must do its part to step up.

I ask the member to talk about that important obligation we have as neighbours, as friends, to our allies.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague said it very well. This is the time where friendship, if it counts for anything, needs to come to the fore. This is the time when we need to be able to have that difficult conversation.

We really are reaching a point, and it has been a long time now, that this particular way of doing politics has been on the rise, and we need to nip it in the bud before it gets any further out of control. We will not do that without a conversation.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

Much like other members here, I would like to take a moment to honour the victims of this weekend's attack. Cowardly hate crimes such as the one we witnessed in Quebec City on Sunday have no place in our society. Indeed, an attack on any community should be deemed an attack on all. Canadians were very disturbed by the developments. Values we cherish were obviously trampled on.

I stand with my colleagues in solidarity with the Muslim community and with peace-loving Canadians of all backgrounds. It is in that spirit I would like to approach tonight's significant debate.

It is an honour to rise today to participate in this emergency debate. As everyone in this esteemed House is abundantly aware, debates of this nature are relatively rare, reserved for matters of state requiring the urgent and undivided attention of all members. Before I continue, I would like to thank all members of this House for participating in tonight's debate. I would also like to thank the new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for his leadership on this file. I have had the pleasure of working with the minister in the past and have no doubt that he will serve his new position admirably and with great distinction.

Our government has no more sacred duty than to protect both the safety of Canadian citizens and the values we hold dear during times of great uncertainty. It is a challenge we as a country have met time and time again, and one that we will continue to embrace with courage and conviction.

We understand that the recent executive order issued by the United States has jarred many Canadians. Over the past several days, my office has been inundated with emails and phone calls from concerned individuals. Our message to them is clear. While this situation is continuously evolving, senior government officials have been working around the clock to seek clarity for Canadians from the White House, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Our government's actions in response to the executive order have been timely and comprehensive. The Prime Minister's office has been in frequent contact with senior White House officials. Our national security adviser, Daniel Jean, has been in contact with U.S. national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and officials at our embassy in Washington, D.C. continue to engage with their counterparts to clarify the ambit of the executive order and its consequences.

This debate holds special significance to me for a number of reasons. First, I have lived, studied, and worked in the United States, and continue to have family and many close friends who are proud to call America home. As we navigate this new era, they are never far from my thoughts. I know first-hand how immigrants have shaped and enhanced America. I must admit that the America we see reflected in the recent executive order is not the one that I know.

However, I have great faith in the institutions of our neighbours to the south. In recent days, we have seen ordinary American citizens, civil society groups, the attorneys general of numerous states and community and business leaders mobilize in response to this executive order. I believe their common sense and legal concerns will prevail.

Second, as the member of Parliament for one of Canada's most diverse ridings, I am well aware of the concerns facing many Canadians at this troubling time. To that end, our government has confirmed that Canadian dual nationals are not affected by the recent executive order regarding travel and immigration to the United States. Canadian permanent residents with a valid Canadian PR card, visa, and passport, including permanent residents from the seven source countries outlined in the executive order, can still enter the United States.

However, we are aware that the executive order does apply to individuals from the seven countries transiting through Canada. To that end, our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has assured anyone stranded in Canada that our government will provide temporary residency and status to such individuals.

Finally, in regard to Canada's safe third country agreement with the U.S., it should be noted that exceptions already exist for those who have family members in Canada and unaccompanied minors. The objective of the agreement is to strengthen the integrity of our refugee systems, and to share responsibility for providing protection to those in need. All eligible asylum claimants will continue to get a fair hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

As this situation evolves, our government will continue to provide Canadians with relevant information and administrative support in a timely and transparent manner.

The third reason I am concerned is that I feel compelled to address the issue before us today as an immigrant myself. I understand the vital role and contributions that immigrants make to our great country.

Many tens of thousands of dual Canadian citizens hold citizenship in one of the countries identified by the executive order, including many in my riding of Willowdale. Those Canadians can rest assured that we understand their concerns and will do all we possibly can.

Countless Canadians have expressed their views on this executive order. It is important they recognize that our government will continue to ensure that our immigration system remains compassionate, inclusive, and efficient, while also protecting the health, safety, and security of all Canadians.

Canadians are rightly proud of our rich history of welcoming individuals to our shores. This has not and will not change. We are proud of the fact that Canada continues to have one of the most welcoming immigration, refugee, and asylum programs in the world. It does not matter how or when a newcomer arrived in Canada, we know they will make long-lasting contributions to our great country.

Canada's diversity is among our greatest assets, and in an increasingly interconnected global economy, more should be done. Our diversity not only brings its own economic and social awards, but given our aging population, having a robust and efficient immigration system will prove critical to our long-term economic growth.

Those countries that fail to recognize this reality or uphold our cherished values will inevitably do themselves a great disservice. As our world becomes increasingly interdependent and connected, our diversity will be a great source of Canadian strength. While we cannot dictate the domestic policies of other countries, I remain convinced that the Canadian model will be a shining example for others.

If anyone doubts the virtues of attracting the best and brightest from around the world, let them come to Canada. Tolerance, openness, inclusiveness, diversity, these values are obviously non-negotiable for us. In fact, they speak to the very core of who we are as a nation. Canadians have told us time and time again that they wish to keep our doors open to those wanting to make contributions to our country, as well as to those who are in need of our protection. We are all better off as a result.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “Diversity is our strength”. These words matter, as we have seen Canadians, and indeed the international community rally around Canada's message of compassion, generosity, and inclusiveness. We know, however, that mere slogans are not enough. Canada must always forcefully adhere to these values. The tragic events of this weekend are a reminder of how vigilant we must be in defending Canadian values of pluralism and multiculturalism.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are coming to the end of this debate, and I have expressed before my significant concerns about the executive order. I want to ask the member this. Given the value of this exercise, it would be worthwhile for us to consider having more emergency debates in the future about international human rights issues, perhaps touching on very significant human rights issues in Iran, Russia, and China.

Would agree the member agree with me that these types of emergency debates around international human rights questions are worthwhile and it would be something worth doing again on other very significant human rights issues around the world?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we see issues such as the one before us tonight, where Canadians from coast to coast to coast have demonstrated that this is an issue of great concern, of course we would all benefit greatly from understanding the views of the members here and the government would benefit from monitoring what our thoughts are and changing things as need be. Therefore, yes, I would certainly be very much in favour of that.