Debates of Jan. 31st, 2017

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think most members here this evening would share in some of the noble ideals the member has projected through the words she put forward tonight in her thoughtful speech. She has used some powerful language around polarized ideals, polarized fallacies, polarized political dogma, political gamesmanship, whisper campaigns, and so on and so forth, with a slight revision in history in terms of some of the facts as she has presented them regarding what our government is or is not doing in terms of changing our immigration system.

However, I do want to ask the member a pointed question and I want to do it in a non-partisan way. It is an opportunity for her to answer a question which many Canadians are asking themselves today about her own party.

I want to come back to the tip line which she mentioned, which many Canadians described not as a tip line but as a snitch line. She projected it and put it forward this evening as some kind of protective mechanism for women. I would like to give the member a chance to explain what that means. I would also like her to explain what her party's position is as it permits the debate which is taking place in her party's leadership campaign, led by the member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey, who would like to impose a values test on immigrants who are seeking to enter our country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite listened to a word I said, but I will say this. The country is watching this debate tonight and asking us how we are to respond to the executive order in the United States, and my entreaty is this. Rather than sending out tweets saying “welcome, refugees” in 140 characters, let us actually welcome some Yazidi genocide victim survivors.

As many of my colleagues in this place have asked for tonight, let us lift the cap on privately sponsored refugee families. There are 45,000 applications in the queue. Let us unleash the generosity of Canadians, and not just shift the responsibility of this to Canadian taxpayers. Let us make sure that when we are welcoming refugees to Canada the metrics the government is using are not just numbers, but it is saying how many people have found jobs, how many women have come here with children are isolated in their homes and have not learned one of Canada's languages. These are the sorts of things the government has completely let go in its rhetoric over the last 18 months.

The point I was trying to make tonight is that there is not a single one of us who is not complicit in the rise of rhetoric around the immigration debate in the last 18 months, from colleagues in the European Union, the rise of nationalist parties, Brexit, what has happened in the United States. We are not making sense on this debate.

The question my colleague asked tonight was the complete opposite of what I was trying to do in my speech. I do not understand why we cannot just focus on how we are delivering services and policies instead of trying to use immigration policy and human lives to sell political rhetoric.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that tonight we are gathering in very dark times in the U.S., but given the recent tragedy where Muslim Canadians were killed here in our own country, it speaks of that same darkness here at home. However, in that darkness, and certainly we see it here tonight, there is hope.

I want to put on the record that this hope is in the galleries where so many people, many of whom are young, are here to stand up and demand better from their government. I say that because I know some of the people in that gallery. They are people who want a government that is going to denounce the racist policies of Donald Trump. They are also people who stand up for the rights of refugees and immigrants and who demand more from their government. I want to register that I am very proud of my generation and the people who are here tonight and those who are watching online and on TV who are saying, “No, we are not just going to sit by. We are going to be active. We are going to be active on the streets, in rallies, in vigils. We are going to be out there, and we are demanding better from our government.”

Does my colleague agree that many Canadians, including many young Canadians, are expecting not just some nice-sounding words in a tweet, but are demanding action that truly supports refugees and immigrants, that truly stands up against discrimination and Islamophobia? Essentially, it is a message that Canadians are demanding that their government truly stand up for them.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, actions always speak louder than words and we are measured by our actions. Tonight, I hope what members of the government party might leave with, what members of the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship who are sitting in the lobby tonight might leave with, what the immigration minister might leave with, is the fact that the next time the Prime Minister feels compelled to tweet about American policy decisions, he should first look inwardly and ensure that we have our own house in order.

There are several pieces of policy that can show the world from a non-partisan perspective what Canada means in terms of welcoming refugees, ensuring that genocide survivors have a home here in a short period of time per the dictates of a unanimously passed motion in this place, ensuring that refugees who are in this country and who are government sponsored, have the programs and services that they need to integrate in this Canadian economy and our social fabric in a short period of time, in a plan that is transparently costed and presented to the Canadian public so that there can be social licencing and through programs such as the privately sponsored refugee program. I have no idea why the government put a cap on this, this year.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of the member for Calgary Nose Hill and my question is this. The extraordinary measures taken by this government to land 40,000 Syrian refugees into this country in the last year had an impact on countries in other parts of the world where refugees are also in desperate need of support. In fact, in Amnesty International's list of the top 10 countries generating refugees we find Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Central African Republic, and Eritrea.

Despite the fact that the member opposite asked us to slow down and increase security, despite the fact that the member opposite was part of the government that cut services to refugees, cut public housing, cut services around language training to immigrants and refugees over the last 10 years, my question is a very simple one. If we have an obligation to refugees, we have an obligation all over the world, not just one particular country or one particular population. If genocide is wrong, it is wrong everywhere. How do we clear the backlog created by the extraordinary effort to land 40,000 Syrians and balance that against the need to also respond to the refugee crisis right around the world in the countries I listed if we do not have a balanced approach that shares the burden of all countries and allows all countries access to our shores in order that they get refuge?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2015, the United Nations issued a report that called upon the international community to accelerate asylum claims for the Yazidi victims of genocide. Why? Why did the United Nations say prioritize these refugee claimants before anyone else? Because there are people who are being wiped off the face of this earth. There are people who cannot make it into the UN's referral process because, first of all, to get to a refugee camp is near to impossible and then when they arrive there they cannot stay there for appointment processes because they are persecuted when they get there. This is a well-documented fact.

There are so many people in the world who require the assistance of a generous country like Canada. That said, we should not just rely on the bureaucracy of the UN when we clearly see failures. I think the response has to be twofold. When we see genocide occurring, we have to call it what it is, which the government did not do. The government has several opportunities to vote to support the declaration of the Yazidi genocide and it failed to do that. The member opposite voted against that. Then we need to ensure that our processes to prioritize those victims reflect such declarations.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for her speech. I was very proud of that well-thought-out and very well-spoken speech from her heart.

I want to talk about something that is hopeful. People in my riding have welcomed as private sponsors so many refugees in the last year. These are individuals who probably do not march and are probably not here in the gallery today, but they literally open up their homes and house people and help them learn English. They help them get jobs and it has been a huge success in southern Manitoba. We brought multitudes of refugees here under the private sponsorship program.

Could my colleague talk about how successful that is and how we can encourage that and find a win-win for everyone?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the private sponsorship program for refugees is a hallmark of Canadian immigration policy. It allows individual Canadian citizens to raise funds, come together as groups, and to bring people to this country and support them through their integration into our economic and social fabric. It is international best practice and many of the refugees who came into Canada late in 2015, whom the Prime Minister took pictures with at the Pearson International Airport, were brought in through the generosity of private sponsors.

Tonight, as we look toward ways of welcoming more refugees to Canada, we know that this is best practice. My party calls upon the government to lift this ban on privately sponsored refugees and to ensure that when the government is taking photo ops, it is thanking the generosity of Canadians who raised the funds to bring refugees and to support them.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

I appreciate having the opportunity to take part in this important debate tonight.

First, please allow me to address the tragic events of Sunday night in Quebec City. When I first learned of this cowardly and senseless act of terrorism, I felt many emotions: outrage that innocent people in a place of sanctuary and worship could be subject to violence; sadness for the victims and for their families, and for whom the feeling of safety has been shattered; and concern that this act of intolerance could spur more intolerance. When I feel these emotions, I find myself reminded of a great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who told us that love is better.

I say to all Canadians, let us choose love, love for those who will grow up without their loved ones, love for a community in mourning, even love for those who try to stoke fear to further their own narrow ends.

Whatever our ethnicity, our faith, or our background, we are all Canadians. We are all united against violence and hatred.

I have heard from many of my constituents who are concerned they could be impacted by the immigration measures introduced recently by the Government of the United States of America. I share their concerns. I am an immigrant myself. I was relieved to learn that the Prime Minister's Office was in frequent contact with senior White House officials over the weekend, and that our embassy in Washington, D.C. continues to engage with the administration to get the best possible information on how these policy changes will impact Canadians.

Thanks to these efforts, we have been assured that Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are dual nationals are not affected by this executive order, even if they are citizens of one of the seven specified countries. All Canadian passport holders and permanent resident card holders should be able to travel to the United States as before. Our officials remain in close contact with the U.S. officials to receive further clarity.

I was also reassured by the words of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada both on Sunday and here tonight, when he said that any foreign nationals from the seven countries listed in the executive order who were transiting through Canada and are stranded will be provided temporary residence status until they can make arrangements to return home.

While we can disagree with them, each country has the right to set its own policies when it comes to immigration. What we can do is make our own choices, based on our own values, and model those values as an example to the world.

As an immigrant and a member of Parliament, I am proud to be a Canadian, and I am proud of the example that Canada is setting for the world.

Our country is open and welcoming. Canada has been lauded around the world for its leadership in welcoming refugees fleeing persecution, terror, and war. In 2016, in response to the Syrian refugee crisis, we welcomed and successfully resettled over 45,000 refugees.

Let me take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill for his leadership and determination as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in achieving this goal. While we wish him good luck in his new role, we will miss his caring and compassion in this place.

I have had the opportunity to meet many of the Syrian refugee families who have settled in Scarborough, and their gratitude for the opportunity to be in Canada is overwhelming. These families, and especially the children, have been through so much, but to see the children be in a place that is safe, to see the twinkle in their eyes and the smiles on their faces as they strap on skates for the first time, or play in the snow in their first Canadian winter, warms the heart.

The support from the community has also been overpowering. I have met with local employers who have hired refugees and been so impressed with how hard they work, and how grateful they are for this opportunity.

On Saturday, I had the opportunity to join the Metropolitan United Church as it held a celebration marking the one-year anniversary since it welcomed the Bakour family from Syria to its new home, Canada. Canadians have opened their arms and their hearts, as we always have, to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and who are just looking for what we take for granted, the opportunity to live in peace and give their children better opportunities than they have had.

There is still work to do. At the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we completed a study on Syrian refugee resettlement and made a number of recommendations for improving the provision of important settlement services. I know the government will consider these recommendations and act accordingly. After all, in Canada better is always possible.

However, what will not change is the warmth and generosity of Canadians. In 2017, Canada will welcome 40,000 refugees and protected persons, which, other than last year, is one of the highest levels on record of refugees welcomed in Canada. With these efforts, Canada continues to be a key contributor to the international effort to address humanitarian protection issues, and offer asylum to the most vulnerable person fleeing persecution, terror, and war around the world.

However, it is not just about offering a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. Immigration benefits our country. Immigration grows our economy. Immigration contributes to our diversity, and our diversity is our strength.

Take this past weekend, for example. On this one weekend alone, I attended the following: the lunar new year celebrations with the Chinese community and with the Buddhist community at a Buddhist temple; the debut of a documentary exploring the contributions of the Pakistani diaspora in Canada; a celebration at a United Church, marking the first anniversary of the Syrian refugee family it sponsored arriving in Canada; a Thai Pongal celebration with the Tamil community; the grand opening of a new Indian cuisine restaurant; and, the one-year celebration of a Tim Hortons franchise in my riding, owned by a Bangladeshi businessman. This is Scarborough. This is Canada. Immigrants start new businesses. They are job creators. Immigrants bring needed skills and new energy. They grow the economy. Immigrating parents and grandparents allow both parents to enter the workforce. They grow our tax base.

I was welcomed as an immigrant in 1999, and today I am a member of Parliament, my husband is working for a bank, one son is in university, and another is not far behind. We have a number of former refugees in this place, including the member for Parkdale—High Park, and our new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. They are making important and valuable contributions to their new homes, and making this country even greater.

We are a nation of immigrants. Other than our indigenous persons, everyone here is from somewhere else. Whether we are Canadians by birth or by choice, regardless of our language, our ethnicity, our faith, or our gender, the Canadian dream is open to everyone if we are willing to work hard. That equality of opportunity is one of the many things that make Canada great. This is the Canadian example. These are Canadian values. This is the model that Canada wants to share with the world. These values are why I am a Canadian. These values are why I am a member of Parliament. These are the values I will never stop fighting for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks, for the work she spoke of, and indeed for some of the important issues she has talked about. I wonder if she would be interested in sharing her thoughts with the House specifically with respect to the present executive order.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to stand by our Canadian values. Canada has always welcomed people fleeing persecution, war, and terror, and will continue to be a global leader in providing refuge to those people needing help. We have been assured by senior officials from the White House that Canadian citizens and those people holding permanent resident cards will not be affected by this executive order and can travel to the U.S.A. They will not be impacted.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party to again respond to the question my colleague from Alberta raised.

There is a very clear action that the Government of Canada could take. It has been called for time after time by Canadians in the streets. We have made the very formal request tonight here in the emergency debate. Under the safe third country agreement, there is a provision whereby Canada has the opportunity to simply suspend, for the time period of this executive order, the provision of that agreement to the United States, so those who may be stranded in the United States of America as refugees have the opportunity to claim asylum in Canada.

Could the member please respond to that specific request? Does she not think that when we draft those agreements, we think ahead to the occasion when the situation might break down and the United States could do the same to us? Does the member not think this would be the reasonable thing to do, at least in this interim period?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has always assured people fleeing war and persecution that they will be welcomed.

Regarding the safe third country agreement, the minister assured us today, and we were assured over the weekend, that the requirements of the agreement were being met. Canada will continue to monitor the situation, and will be in contact with officials. Canadians will be kept informed of the situation.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in total shock, and my heart is breaking.

We have an international responsibility to show leadership when something this awful happens. Today we are debating the U.S. travel and immigration ban. That is what we are here to talk about. This is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to stand and say “This is not okay”. It is a chance to stand up to President Donald Trump.

This is not okay. This is a ban based on race, religion, or place of birth. We need to stand and say that this is not going to happen and that we are going to make sure our voices are heard.

I know we are a welcoming community. In my riding, where I served for over eight years as an executive director of an organization that welcomed refugees and immigrants into our communities, people have raised enormous amounts of money, from communities as small as Sointula to Campbell River, Comox, and Powell River. I am so proud they have worked so hard to get refugees into our country.

If one of us is not safe, then none of us is safe. Today, we are asking the government to stand up for Canadian values. Why will the government not suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said today, the requirements of the agreement are being met.

I want to let the hon. member know that Canada has always stood up for immigrants. It is a country made up of immigrants. Other than the indigenous people, everyone here is an immigrant. I am an immigrant who came here 17 years ago and call Canada my home.

Regardless of our culture, regardless of our faith, regardless of the colour of our skin, Canada has always welcomed new immigrants. We will continue doing that. We will continue to be a beacon of light for the whole world.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the families of the six Canadians who died in the brutal massacre in Quebec City know that as their members of Parliament we are committed to ensuring that hate, bigotry, and division have no place in Canada, that terrorism and violence against any community will never be tolerated or permitted on our soil. As we pray for those innocent lives, we want to let our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Muslim community know that we are with them and that they should feel safe and free as such intolerance and hatred has no room in Canada.

The recent executive order issued by the U.S. administration has banned nationals from seven countries from entering the United States for at least 90 days. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has used his authority to issue a public policy to help people who may be stranded as a result of the executive order. If they had made travel arrangements to enter the United States and have documents they would normally have needed to enter the U.S., but cannot due to the executive order, we can give them status or extend their status in Canada as long as they meet Canada's admissibility criteria.

The minister has asked his officers in the department to expedite a special permit to give such individuals status in Canada if they require it or extend their temporary status if that is required. If they have fallen out of status in Canada, IRCC can expedite the restoration of that status if they are eligible. The minister has given officers in the department permission to waive fees for these measures.

As we know, this executive order has also paused parts of the U.S. resettlement program to review its policy. We look forward to working with the U.S. when it finishes that analysis. In the interim, we will continue to be in close contact with the U.S. and our other allies, such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, to meet our resettlement needs.

The pause of the U.S. resettlement program has caused some people to ask the government how this may affect Canada's refugee and in-Canada asylum policies. Our commitment to refugees remains unchanged. Canada's commitment to refugees will remain on helping those who are vulnerable, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. We continue to work in regions all over the world to provide protection to vulnerable groups, including refugees in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Columbia, Eritrea, and Congo.

As we know, Canada relies on its partners, such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, to identify refugees in need of resettlement, who will then come to Canada as government-supported refugees. When making referrals for resettlement, the United Nations Refugee Agency uses assessments of protection needs and vulnerabilities, for example, identifying refugees with legal, physical protection or medical needs, survivors of torture or violence, women and girls at risk, and children and adolescents at risk.

Determinations of vulnerability and protection needs are made regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds, gender identity or sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. Of course, in many cases, these characteristics may be important elements in the agency's identification of particular individuals as vulnerable and in need of protection.

As I mentioned, the executive order issued by the U.S. has also caused some people to ask the government how the order may affect Canada's in-Canada asylum policies. I wish to assure the House that Canada's in-Canada asylum process will not be affected by this decision. Each refugee claim at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will continue to be assessed on its own merits. As always, decision-makers at the Immigration and Refugee Board must be satisfied that a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that he or she, if removed, would be subjected to a danger of torture or a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

While Canada's policy on refugees and immigration remains open and generous, I wish to remind my hon. colleagues that it is also very thorough. Security is paramount and our refugee resettlement programs are designed with the safety and security of Canadians in mind.

Effective security measures are in place in all our refugee resettlement programs. In addition to a full medical examination, all refugees undergo a thorough criminal and security check to ensure they have not committed serious crimes in the past and they are not a security risk to Canada.

The government also collects biometrics, such as fingerprints and digital photos. This biometric information is then checked against immigration, law enforcement, and security databases. Of course, as part of our interview screening measures, we also collect biographical information, such as marriage and birth certificates. If there are any specific areas of concern, cases are then referred for more in-depth screening by our security partners.

We can all be proud of our country's long-standing tradition of providing protection and refuge to people from around the world fleeing tyranny, violent oppression, and persecution. Since the Second World War, more than one million refugees have come to call Canada home. Given the relatively small size of Canada's population, this is a very impressive number.

Today, we continue to have one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. In fact, Canada welcomes one in 10 refugees resettled worldwide, more than almost any other industrialized country in the world.

The government remains strongly committed to maintaining our proud humanitarian tradition. We also remain strongly committed to the idea that immigration is critical to Canada's economic future. Our country's future success will be largely driven by attracting talented people from around the world.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “Diversity is our strength”. Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. Canada's diversity is also among our greatest assets in an increasingly interconnected global economy. Our diversity not only brings its own economic and social rewards, but with Canada's aging population, having a robust and efficient immigration system will also be critical to our long-term economic growth.

Canadians can be proud that Canada will continue to be a country that welcomes immigrants and refugees from all over the world.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to than the many members in the House who have shared with us information about their riding immigration policies in general and what the government has been doing.

All of that is great, and all of that is being discussed at committee and elsewhere. Tonight's discussion, though, is an emergency debate about the ban that has been imposed by the Trump administration. What we know is this. This ban is based on race, on religion, and on people's place of birth. We have a situation where refugees from these designated countries, as a result of the ban, are no longer welcome. The Trump administration has explicitly said that they are not allowed to enter the United States, at least for 90 days.

In this scenario, I wonder whether the member and the government could answer this question. How can they still believe the United States is still a safe place for those who have been designated by the ban to be not welcomed and cannot enter? If the government agrees with and understands that then, would the member agree that the safe third country agreement needs to be suspended immediately?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, as much as I want to thank the member for Parliament for Vancouver East who has raised this debate and her concerns about refugees, specifically those who are in the United States, and as much as I can say that I think the House will unilaterally not agree with the policies that have been implemented under the executive order in the U.S., the United States still remains a safer place than many other countries in the world. There is no imminent harm that would make us suspend those regulations.

As we can see, there has been an overabundant level of support in the United States for the refugees, including from the former attorney general, who was recently suspended, the thousands who have flocked to the airport terminals, and the thousands of companies that have committed their support for them. Therefore, if we are looking at a serious and imminent threat, that is not for them. However, I absolutely agree that the United States is perhaps not as open as its reputation ought to be.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, like many of my fellow Canadians, I was extremely impressed by the spontaneous demonstrations that erupted in airports across the United States. The governors of several prominent states, not the least of which were California, New York, and Washington and many senators and members of Congress are all standing up and speaking out against this President's policies.

Our American brothers and sisters, those who have the courage to resist this President, are looking for international friends and solidarity.

Why is his government not showing the courage that American brothers and sisters demand from the international community? Why are we not showing solidarity with them and standing up to this President? Where are our principles?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not see a prime minister or head of state of any country that has stood up for refugees, immigrants, and the rights of many more than this Prime Minister and this government have. We were the first and foremost to stand up to him. We are the first and foremost protectors, and actions speak louder than words.

When we have accepted one out of every 10 refugees in the world, which is more than any industrialized country, I think that speaks volumes. When we have said to those who were stranded at airports here that they could stay, that speaks louder than words.

I think we have done an abundantly clear job of showing their rights. We will never send anyone back who comes to these shores who has a rightful refugee claim, and I think this government stands by that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable this evening, and I am looking forward to what he has to say later.

So often freedom and immigration actually go together. I am reminded of the tragedy in Quebec City the other night. We want to express our sympathies to the families and friends who have been impacted and to the victims of that recent shooting. Too often these events take place around the world.

I want to recognize one other person. Last summer, there was a group of us internationally who were able to go to Myanmar to discuss the Rohingya Muslim issue with the folks there. One of the gentlemen we met was U Ko Ni, a prominent Muslim lawyer who had spent a number of years as a legal advisor to Aung San Suu Kyi and who had worked with the National League for Democracy. The other day he returned to the Yangon airport and came out of the airport and was assassinated. We can only assume he was assassinated for the work he has been doing. We should also recognize one of the taxi drivers who attempted to challenge the shooter and was killed as well.

We recognize that these events take place around the world, and every one of them breaks our hearts.

Tonight I would like to talk about a critical issue, and that is not of what other governments are doing but what our own government has been doing. That needs to be our first and foremost interest in this country.

The Liberal response to the U.S. travel ban has been basically self-congratulatory. It was pretty much underwhelming.

I want to talk about some of the issues around immigration that the Liberals have failed to address properly over the last year and a bit. There are a number of these issues. They include things like the successful integration of Syrian refugees and properly responding to Canadians and their desire to privately sponsor refugees. Mexican visas and Mexican visa removal is another one of those issues. Certainly one of the most prominent ones would be the failure of the current government to prioritize the Yazidi genocide victims.

We are all familiar with the story of the Yazidis and the fact that in August 2014, ISIS swept through the Sinjar area and the Yazidis were surrounded. In early August, tens of thousands fled. Thousands of men were killed. We discovered mass graves after that time. Women were abducted. There were many forced conversions. It took until 2016 for the world to begin to recognize that this actually had been a genocide and needed to be treated that way.

The government, unfortunately, over the last year, has resisted multiple attempts to call this a genocide and basically had to be shamed to the point where the Liberals would finally recognize it for what it was. The reason that is important is that out of that came multiple initiatives from this side of the House to try to encourage the Liberals to take a look at the Yazidis and how they might bring them here. One of the failures of the Liberals' policy has been that they have refused to consider any type of religious affiliation in their decisions as to which refugees to bring here. There are arguments for doing that, but the reality is that when they did that, they were not able to find the real victims, the ones who were the most persecuted minorities, because as they began looking through the United Nations camps, those folks were not there. They were too scared to go there. They were not able to go there, so as the government began to bring in refugees, it missed a very important component, which was dealing with the most persecuted minorities that existed.

There was a unanimous motion in the House, which we are all familiar with, that the government would begin to bring here Yazidi women and girls who had been victimized. It is unfortunate that we have come back to this session and still have to ask the Liberals if they can tell us if they have done this. In the last couple of days, in question period, the only answer has been a resounding silence and the refusal of the new minister to answer that question.

How many Yazidi women have been cleared to come to Canada? We cannot get an answer. While the world is distracted and looking at some of these other issues, we have some people who have been brutally treated who are trying to come to this country, and the current government does not seem capable of responding. It is unfortunate that we have had to listen to the minister evade the answer as to how many of these women and girls have been allowed to come here. It is time for the government to take responsibility on this issue.

There is another issue that has been near and dear to my heart. Over the last few years, I have been involved with religious freedom issues around the world. I have been able to work with people from many different countries and all kinds of faith groups in trying to reinforce the three articles and Article 18 of the United Nations charter.

In our election campaign in 2011, we made a decision to set up the office of religious freedom. It took us until about 2013 to get it established. It was amazing the work ambassador Andrew Bennett was able to do through that small office. He was only given a budget of about $5 million per year. The office had a staff of five to seven people. Its mandate was to protect and advocate on behalf of religious minorities that were under threat and to oppose religious hatred and intolerance. Its mandate also included the promotion of the Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.

I find it ironic that we are sitting here tonight talking about those very issues, yet the office of religious freedom no longer exists. It got by on a $5 million budget with about five to seven employees, and it had incredible influence around the world.

I became involved with a group of parliamentarians who were working on religious freedom. Everywhere I went, I heard about the impression the office of religious freedom was making on governments in other countries. We would go to Europe and people would ask if there was something they could do to model that structure, because they saw how it was working. There were projects in places like Pakistan on educating and checking out school material and trying to make sure there was no hate material in the school material. The office was involved in a number of projects, and it made a huge difference in people's lives.

They worked in some of the most difficult areas of the world. I talked about Pakistan. Officials were in Ukraine, where they were trying to keep religious authorities from being a source of tension in the conflict there. They worked in Indonesia as well. The office was seen as a major positive contribution to Canada's reputation around the world. These projects addressed a growing demand around the world.

Since I became involved in this in 2010, it is interesting to see how this issue has exploded. It is not an issue that we do not think about anymore. Most of the time it seems that political issues around the world are tied to faith issues that are operating around them.

That office was set up at a good time and it was in a good place to do good work. That office was aligned with the government's larger priorities at the time. It gave Canada great influence in communities around the world. For such a small project, it had tremendous influence, and it was working directly with other governments.

The international contact working group was set up in 2015. Ambassador Bennett was the chair of that. It brought together 20 countries that were interested in dealing with issues of religious freedom. It also tried to deal with the kinds of issues we are talking about here and with finding a place for people to respect others' rights, a place where people could critically analyze other people's beliefs without being afraid of how they would be treated.

One of the things the group also did was work in parallel with the organization I have been involved with. It has probably the world's worst acronym. It is called the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief. It has now had members join from dozens of countries that want to make this into a major issue.

I was disappointed when the government decided to cancel that initiative. It put another smaller office in place called the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. It is located in a little corner of Global Affairs. To this point, nobody knows what it has done. The government tripled its budget, and 35 people work for it, but it has had no impact. It is an opaque organization. It has been frustrating. It is also frustrating that my time is almost gone.

In this situation, the battle against religious persecution was diminished by the decision of the government opposite, and it is too late for it to reconsider. It certainly took Canada out of a position of major influence on these issues of religious freedom and immigration and those issues around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen over the last couple of days Canadians right across this country standing in solidarity with the Muslim faith community. In fact, Canadians stand every day in solidarity with all faith communities across our country.

This government created the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. As my hon. colleague mentioned, the budget has been tripled over the previous office created by the previous government.

Human rights are a fundamental part of all of our international interventions in the world through our involvement with the UN, la Francophonie, and the Commonwealth. Our refugee and immigration policy is rooted in equal human dignity and human rights.

Would my hon. colleague across the way please acknowledge that when we accept refugees in Canada, it is because we believe in equal human dignity and the equal human rights of all persons?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the difference is actually about painting a line. There is a definite line or different mark on the wall. We are just taking the paint and splashing it out there. The government in so many areas seems to have just taken that gallon of paint and thrown it against the wall to see what would happen.

It is even in the refugee programs that the Liberals have brought in. The Liberals have brought refugees in here, and they wanted to meet a number and have bragged about that number ever since, but the reality is that they did not provide them with the programming they need. We do not see the language services. We do not see the job opportunities.

Meanwhile, we have private sponsorship across this country of groups of people who want to bring others in. They are providing them with jobs, friendship, and the community that they need. This has been far more successful.

I think the government needs to refocus. It needs to get a focus first of all, and then try to see it through.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for addressing the House on the critical issue of religious freedom. However, tonight's emergency debate was predicated on the question of how Canada should respond to the executive order of President Trump, which indefinitely suspends the settlement of Syrian refugees and temporarily bans people. How Canada should respond to that is the essential question before us. I would ask the member to address that question for us this evening.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, as my Liberal colleagues pointed out earlier, I believe each country makes its own choices, and the United States has made those choices. We welcome the time when refugees from around the world will be able to once again come to the United States. We certainly see that.

However, from Canadians' perspective, we need our government to be doing a good job on these immigration issues, bringing people in here, and giving them the support that they need so that they can become an active part of the Canadian fabric. We need the government to step up, give them the language training, the support, the jobs, and those kinds of things. Our private sponsorships have done a good job of that. Those are the issues that are really important to Canadians.

I would argue with my colleague that those issues of religious freedom are relevant to this whole discussion, and certainly getting more important all the time to Canadians.