Debates of Jan. 31st, 2017

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I invited the hon. member for Outremont to withdraw the word he used.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Of course, Mr. Speaker. Twitter is not my word; it is a trademark. I cannot help it. I withdraw it unreservedly.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Saying that sort of thing is not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, leaving that aside, I want to ask the leader of the NDP a different question. Certainly we have spoken out very clearly about the problems with the executive order.

I want to ask him another question about refugees. The House passed a motion with respect to Yazidi refugees. What action does the leader of the NDP think is necessary from the government in light of that motion to address the urgent issue of Yazidi, as well as the Syrian Christian refugees, many of whom are similarly affected by this ban but who also face genocide in their own country?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is what we are doing for refugees generally. Whether they are Yazidis, Christian, Muslim, it does not matter. That is the whole point of this debate.

Our American neighbours have just enacted a presidential decree that singles out people on the basis of their religion or their national origin for special treatment. Historically, that has produced tragic results.

The member of Parliament for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation said before that this was all theory. Actually, 2,248 innocent Syrian refugees who have been immediately and indefinitely stranded by Trump's ban is anything but a theory; it is a reality.

That is why, on this side of the House, we asked for this emergency debate. My colleague from Vancouver East obtained that debate, thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. These are rare events, but they are institutionally important because they allow us to shine a light on an issue that cannot be debated otherwise. That is the condition, sine qua non, of this type of debate.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your prescience in according this debate. I want to assure Canadians that the New Democratic Party is never going to satisfy itself with vague sentences. We will never use the type of language that has been used. We will call for immediate action and for the Canadian government to finally start standing up to the fascist Donald Trump.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to the recent developments concerning immigration and travel to the United States, and to participate in this emergency debate.

Canada is a welcoming nation. Throughout our history, immigration has played a key role in helping build our strong and prosperous country. Immigration will continue to play that important role to contribute to Canada's well-being, to our economic prosperity, and to our overall success as a country.

Our government is committed to ensuring Canada's economic prosperity as well as to doing our part to help others in seeking refuge. That is why our 2016 immigration levels plan contained the highest level of projected immigrant admissions put forward in modern times, and our latest plan maintains these historically high levels and will result in Canada welcoming between 280,000 and 320,000 new permanent residents in 2017.

Notably, we have increased the share of economic admissions in our 2017 levels plan as compared with the 2016 plan, which is a reflection of our commitment to the idea that immigration is a key ingredient to our economic success. For this is true. As much as immigrants need Canada, Canada also needs immigrants.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that Canada will continue to be a place of refuge and protection to those who are fleeing persecution and war in the world. We applaud Canadians and we thank them so much for their generosity in welcoming 46,000 refugees in the year 2016. This is not just a reflection on our government's leadership on this file. It is a true testament to the ability of Canadians to open their hearts and their doors to our new Canadian family members.

The government recognizes that Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada are rightly concerned about the implications of the recent American President's executive order.

I wish to take this opportunity to assure the House, and indeed all Canadians and permanent residents, that our government takes this matter very seriously. We recognize that this decision could impact many Canadians and permanent residents. We will continue our dialogue with our American counterparts over the coming days to minimize any negative impact.

As members are aware, the President's executive order that was signed on January 27 has banned nationals from seven countries from entering the United States for at least 90 days. These countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

The American administration has assured us that Canadian dual nationals travelling on a Canadian passport are not affected by this executive order. In addition to that, we were also informed by the White House that Canadian permanent residents with a valid Canadian permanent resident card would continue to have access to the United States as before. We will continue to engage with our U.S. government counterparts during this ongoing implementation of their executive order to ensure that Canadians and permanent residents are provided with updated information as it becomes available.

As I announced Sunday, I assure those who may be stranded in Canada as a result of the U.S. travel restrictions that I will use my power as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to provide temporary residency to anyone stranded in Canada as a result of these measures. As such, I have signed today a public policy that will allow me to exercise my ministerial authority to grant temporary resident visa extensions. This means that individuals currently visiting Canada with a valid Canadian visitor visa on their passports but who cannot return to the United States will be able to extend their stay in Canada as needed.

We know Global Affairs Canada has not received any requests for consular assistance to date, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is keenly monitoring these events, as is the Minister of Public Safety. However, my department was made aware that a small number of passengers aboard Canadian flights had been denied boarding, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely with the Minister of Transport and his department who are in daily contact with airlines on these matters.

To reiterate, we were advised by United States authorities that Canadian citizens with dual citizenship from one of the seven countries were not affected by the executive order. This means that the regular travel procedures to the United States should continue to apply for these individuals.

Once again, the government strongly encourages dual nationals to travel with their Canadian passports.

Officials through our embassy in Washington continue to work with their American counterparts to clarify the details of the executive order and its impacts.

The Government of Canada will continue to provide information to the public once it is available so Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and visitors to our country who plan to visit the United States are kept up to date on travel requirements.

I will also note that there was a Reuters report yesterday evening that the U.S. government had granted waivers to let 872 refugees, due to arrive shortly, into their country since the executive order was issued. While we are seeking further information on this matter, it does suggest that the situation continues to evolve and we will continue to assess the impacts of that.

Within the framework of this debate, I would also like to say a few words about Canada's approach to immigration and to refugees.

As the Prime Minister has frequently said, we are strong because of our diversity, not in spite of it. We have a long, proud, and strong tradition of welcoming newcomers and those who seek protection in our land. We have an openness and a positive attitude to allow new citizens to make lasting contributions to Canadian society.

Like many in our country, I can speak about this Canadian tradition in a personal way. I am someone who originally came to Canada as a teenager and as a refugee. I can trace all of the opportunities I have had in this country and throughout my life to the fortunate arrival I had in Canada. I know from my own personal experience that Canadians from many walks of life continue to play a critical role in the successful integration and settlement of newcomers to our country. This is an effort that is beyond government, that is within the broader community, and I owe a great deal of the success I have had to this integral part of my experience.

I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is at the community level to foster integration and inclusion for newcomers. It is incumbent on communities to take that leadership role and our government will continue to support that process. I have witnessed first hand this welcoming spirit that is common within many Canadian communities both small and large.

In contrast with the populations of many other countries, Canadians by and large believe that our openness, our welcoming attitude to those in need and those in search of a better life make our own country better and stronger.

We saw this attitude most recently during our great national project to resettle Syrian refugees in Canada, a project that was embraced with enthusiasm by Canadians in both large urban centres and small rural communities throughout Canada.

My predecessor, as minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, frequently noted that he was the only immigration minister in the world who faced the challenge of trying to welcome enough refugees quickly enough to satisfy the remarkable generosity of Canadians who wanted to sponsor them.

It is a legacy I am pleased to inherit. I believe this reflects well on our country and is one of the reasons why people all over the world look admiringly at Canada and seek to build a new life in our great country. It also creates something of a "virtuous circle" that brings great benefits to the country.

Indeed, just as the broader Canadian community supports, sustains, and helps to integrate newcomers, we can appreciate that newcomers to Canada have historically returned the favour, as they and their descendants have become productive and influential Canadians.

We have all heard the words of thanks from our recently resettled Syrian refugees and the gratefulness they have expressed toward the country and the people that have brought them to a better and safer life.

We are seeing every day examples of how they are making the effort to make their new communities and their new country a better place.

A wonderful example of this is Ms. Rita Khanchat from Calgary. Last year she left Syria during the civil war, coming to Canada to start a new life.

When the wildfires broke out in Fort McMurray, she mobilized the Calgary Syrian refugee community to donate whatever they could to support the families displaced by the wildfires. Ms. Khanchat Kallas recently received the 2016 People's Choice Peace and Human Rights Award for her great accomplishments and her compassion and humanitarianism.

Newcomers and their descendants have made immeasurable contributions to the economic, cultural, and social development of our country.

When our Prime Minister spoke at the United Nations last September about Canada's project to resettle Syrian refugees, he told the world about the Hadhad family of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, who opened the now renowned Peace by Chocolate factory within a few months of arriving in Canada. The Hadhad family, who have quickly gone from refugees to employers, are just the latest example of the great contributions newcomers make to Canada, their new home.

Communities across the country have greatly benefited from immigrants' new ideas, unique skills, investments, and entrepreneurial spirit. The Government of Canada recognizes this. That is why we want to ensure that immigrants with skills and experience are attracted to Canada and can integrate and contribute to our economy as quickly as possible. That is why we work very hard to develop innovative policies and programs that drive economic growth, foster diversity and inclusion, fuel investment, and attract and retain global talent. It is why a key part of that work is cultivating a fast and flexible economic immigration system that can meet Canada's economic and labour market needs by bringing in a diverse range of people, professionals, skilled workers, and former international students. It is why we always try to introduce innovative new thinking into our immigration system, such as our start-up visa program targeting immigrant entrepreneurs who can build innovative companies that can create jobs for Canadians and compete on a global scale.

A few days ago, I was in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, to help launch the innovative and employer-driven Atlantic immigration pilot program. This pilot program aims to attract and retain skilled immigrants to meet the demographic and labour market challenges faced by Atlantic Canada.

These initiatives that we undertake in my department are all premised on the idea that immigration brings great benefits to Canada, and we must do everything we can to maximize those benefits, be they economic, social, or cultural.

Some of our initiatives are in the area of temporary immigration, initiatives that enable us to welcome workers, visitors, and international students to Canada in ways that benefit our country and economy. For example, we recently introduced a global skills strategy to help attract the best minds from other countries. One element of this strategy, which is overseen by my department, will get highly skilled workers here faster by processing their work permits and visas in only two weeks. As well, we are removing the requirement of a work permit for foreign nationals coming to Canada to work for a very short duration. We are also launching a dedicated service channel for foreign companies making significant job-creating investments in Canada.

Another great example of our welcoming attitude in the area of temporary immigration is Canada's international student program, which is geared toward making Canada attractive to students who might otherwise choose to study elsewhere. Apart from the tremendous cultural and social benefits international students bring to this country, they contribute at least $11.3 billion to our gross domestic product. No doubt, there is global competition for international students, and we must do more to attract and retain these amazing individuals.

We have demonstrated that we are confident in our immigration system. The Government of Canada will continue to ensure that our immigration system is about compassion and economic opportunity while we protect the health, safety, and security of Canadians. We have demonstrated these principles repeatedly in the actions we have taken in our immigration policies. We have doubled the number of resettled refugees in 2017 compared to the levels in 2015 and earlier. We have tripled the number of privately-sponsored refugees compared to the previous government's target.

We have a plan in place to address the backlog of applications, which skyrocketed under the previous government, with an aim to bring down the processing times for refugees from all over the world.

We cannot forget that immigration is also about family reunification. Over the last year, we have made significant changes to reunite families, with announcements for spouses, parents, and grandparents.

We continue to focus efforts to bring in the best, brightest, skilled, and talented from around the world to contribute to Canada's economy.

As Canadians, we believe we have a responsibility to those who are displaced, persecuted, and most in need of protection. As such, Canada will continue to welcome those fleeing persecution and war.

We will continue to engage with our international partners, including the UNHCR, and to share with these partners our experiences, our lessons learned, and our overall approach to the challenges of refugee resettlement. For example, in December, Canada hosted the launch of the global refugee sponsorship initiative, which aims, in part, to offer up, as an example to other countries, our unique Canadian approach to refugee resettlement, in particular our private sponsorship of refugees program.

As a Canadian, I am very proud of our country's long history as a welcoming nation to immigrants and refugees.

Again, I would like to assure Canadians and members of this House that our government is engaged with the U.S. administration, and we will work with them to ensure that Canadian citizens and Canadian permanent residents receive updated information and that Canada will assist those who are stranded in Canada en route to the U.S.

Canada is a country that has always opened its doors and hearts to new immigrants and refugees. We will carry on this proud tradition.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. There is one thing I would like to thank the minister for, and that is the quick response to those people who were stranded. That is one thing I do agree with.

I dealt with citizenship and immigration for 11 years as an assistant. There are so many things I am looking at. Within my own community and throughout Canada, we have seen many failed policies. We can talk about the Yazidi girls that our critic, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, brought up. We can talk about that. I have seen great failure there.

This speech was very much one of platitudes. One of the most important things is that we are supposed to be debating something, and I have not heard a response. One thing many of my constituents want to know about is the safe third country agreement. I did not hear you talk about that at all. I just want to know what your values are and where you stand on that.

When we are talking about policies, we are talking about very high-level policies here. That is great. You can talk about everything you have done. We have not seen it actually in—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I have to remind the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, and I think she knows, that when she says “you” in this House, she is referring to the Speaker. Of course, we direct our comments to the Speaker here, so we do not say “you” except in that case. I know the member knows that and that she will watch that in the future.

The hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have received that question, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about two things the hon. member brought up.

On the issue of vulnerable survivors of Daesh, we are working very hard to meet that commitment. I am very proud that all the members of this House supported the resettling of survivors of Daesh in Canada. Our operation is already under way. We are working with partners on the ground. Northern Iraq is a very volatile location. The security situation changes almost daily.

We are working with local partners as well as with the regional authorities in northern Iraq to make sure that we get this right. Our operation is already under way and has been under way for a long time. I want to assure the hon. member that the operation will continue as we meet that commitment.

On the issue of privately sponsored refugees, I just want to say that we have tripled the numbers that were in place under the previous government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the minister for his appointment. I am looking forward to working with him on the issues he has raised.

Tonight's debate is about the ban that has been brought forward by the Trump administration. This is an emergency debate. This is a discriminatory ban that is targeting people based on their race, based on their religion, and based on their place of birth. To that end, I have received many letters and phone calls on this. I know the minister has as well. In an open letter from over 200 Canadian law professors, they wrote:

We condemn these actions and statements in the strongest possible terms. They reflect the very bigotry, xenophobia and nativist fear-mongering that the international refugee regime was designed to counteract. We also note that they are inconsistent with the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many other international human rights instruments.

Can the minister explain why he disagrees with this assessment and refuses to take the simple step of using article 10 of the agreement to immediately suspend it?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the responsible thing for our government to do once the executive order came out was to engage with our American counterparts and seek clarification on the implications of the executive order. We have received assurances from the White House and other U.S. authorities that Canadian citizens, Canadian dual citizens, and permanent residents with valid permanent resident cards continue to have access to the United States and are not affected by this executive order.

In terms of the safe third country agreement, the conditions of that agreement continue to be met.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the minister on his appointment.

As a Conservative, I do not have any problem saying that I think this executive order is imprudent and unjust. Does the minister agree with me about that?

While we are talking about human rights issues, I want to give the minister an opportunity to comment on a human rights situation that I know he is aware of, which is the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma. The situation has become worse. It is a devastating situation. I wonder if the minister could take this opportunity to comment on what the government is doing about that situation.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked an important question, and it gives me a chance to reiterate our commitment to refugees to provide protection to those who seek refuge in our country. We are open to new ideas. We are open to people. We are open to newcomers. Our refugee system has been widely acknowledged as being one of the most generous and compassionate in the world. All refugee claims are heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and they are heard on their own merits. We have one of the most generous and compassionate refugee systems in the world.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I surfed my rules of procedure thinking there might be a point of order I could raise, but I could not find an order dealing with my request.

Outside in the cold, I have never seen anything like it. There are people lined up to get into this place. The public galleries are full. I have never seen an emergency debate at night draw crowds. Those people are very cold, and I would ask the minister if he would join me in asking that whatever procedural steps need to be taken are taken to ensure that the people waiting outside get in for this debate. Canadians' consciences have been struck deeply by the appalling executive order of the Trump administration, and Canadians outside in the cold would like to be in here watching parliamentarians debate.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo the member's sentiments. When the public shows up to the House of Commons and we are in session, if measures could be taken to open the doors and fill the public galleries with those who wish to witness debate, all of us, as representatives of those constituents and Canadians, would have no problem holding this debate in front of as many of them as possible.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London rising on the same point of order?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely support what both members have said. When the galleries are empty on three sides, we should allow all of the public to come in for this important debate.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there have been discussions with security staff regarding allowing people to enter and sit in the galleries. I see one gallery that is totally empty, when there are 90 people outside. Everyone here agrees that we should let them in. Let us wait for them.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this and other members who have contributed their thoughts on this. I was advised recently that 40 more members of the public will be coming in shortly, but I will certainly communicate to officials the desire of the House, which appears to be that more should be allowed in to fill the galleries.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fredericton.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank my hon. colleague, the new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for his speech this evening and the words he delivered to reassure Canadians that he and his officials are working hard, alongside the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to keep Canadians abreast of the situation as it changes.

I wonder if in the short period of time he would have to reply he could speak to Canadians and let them know the steps he has taken and that he continues to take to ensure that proper information is disseminated to Canadians right across this country.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the moment this executive order was issued, I and other governmental colleagues have been continually engaged with our American counterparts. We have received assurances. We have continued to monitor the situation.

I have used my ministerial authority to make sure that folks who are stranded in Canada and have a valid Canadian visa, but who cannot now enter the United States, will have temporary residency through ministerial authority.

I will continue to monitor the situation. I am also working very closely with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to ensure that Canadians are up to speed and are informed and updated as quickly as possible.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians I was appalled by Sunday's attack on Muslim worshippers in Quebec City, and I hope we are soon able to move beyond expressions of solidarity against hate crimes, important though those expressions are, to concrete action.

Having heard the minister's examples tonight, I think the government could surely start by lifting that ceiling of 1,000 on private sponsorships for Syrian refugees.

This immigration and travel ban might as well have painted a target on the backs of all Muslims around the world, but while many are at risk, perhaps the most at risk are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens of the seven countries banned. In all seven, homosexuality is illegal. While only three explicitly have the death penalty, in all seven, death sentences are carried out by militias under sharia law, and sometimes also by families as so-called honour killings.

Last year, when announcing its Syrian refugee program, the Liberal government said LGBT refugees are among the most at risk and they would be a high priority for Canada, yet no concrete actions of any kind were taken.

My question tonight is this. Will the government now take specific actions to facilitate asylum for LGBT citizens of the seven countries who are now excluded from the United States and who risk death if sent home?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one thing that the hon. member has stated, which is that there is a cap, a limit on Syrian and Iraqi refugees, of 1,000 persons. In fact, that is not accurate. That is only one stream within the group of five sponsorships. There are many other streams that are available for Canadians to sponsor Iraqi, Syrian, and many other refugees, including the sponsorship agreement holders.

We are open to reviewing the situation, to make sure that we always have room for improvement, but our privately sponsored refugee numbers are triple what the previous government allocated in its immigration levels plan, and we are proud of that record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that Beethoven's seventh symphony, the second movement, makes sense to even the most untrained ear. It juxtaposes restraint with passion in its cadence. It is both regimented and whimsied. It is patient and aggressive. It is elegant and it is rough. It is beauty, it is art, and it is the perfect balance. It is everything that we are capable of.

We wrote Anna Karenina, we have put men on the moon, we have discovered antibiotics, and we found the Higgs boson. We are beauty and we are art. Yet, we repeat the well-documented failures of our past.

As I stood at the Temple Mount last year, what was first and foremost on my mind was not God's peace but how many lives had been sacrificed over the history of our species in the name of tribalism, religion, and hate. As I stood on the Syrian border, and then looked into the haunted eyes of Nadia Murad while she described her week to me, my western naïveté that those who kill in the name of religion can be reasoned with or appeased was violently stripped from me.

Here we are today, in the legislative chamber of one of the world's most wealthy, most democratic, most capitalist countries; two generations removed from open global conflict; many more generations removed from sustained open conflict within our own borders; many innovations, works of art, and billions of dollars of created wealth later; and we find ourselves debating us versus them.

It is facile for us to believe that there are not others on this planet who disagree with our way of life. There are those who hold views so extreme that they kill in the name of their God. They rape in the name of their God. They subjugate and bring terror in the name of their God. No religion and no nation is immune to this. These people live within our borders and without. They are Muslim and they are Christian. They are Sikh and they are Hindu.

Yet there are those who seek to bring light and beauty to the world. They seek to bring peace, prosperity, and tolerance. Every religion and every nation has these people. They are Muslim and they are Christian. They are Sikh and they are Hindu.

Good, courage, innovation, creativity, tolerance, love, light, and hope know no boundaries; nor do evil, hate, subjugation, intolerance, decadence, and violence.

What are we to do, we who value equality of opportunity; we who have created art and beauty, Ebola vaccines, and nanotechnology; we who value hope and the greater good; we who value knowledge; we who value love; we as Canadians?

My entreaty to my colleagues tonight is this: that we reject facile arguments designed to sell products and people, and in doing so, value logic and compassion as we set about our legislative responsibilities in the matter of immigration policy to Canada.

I am fairly sure nobody in this place is going to be pleased with me for this speech tonight.

To respond to the immigration policies of other nations, we must first get our own house in order, and then through those actions show the world what immigration policy best practice looks like. If we are to have any influence on international immigration policy, we must refute through action the emerging international norm of immigration debate becoming firmly entrenched in two polarized positions.

The first school of thought believes that there should be little debate around how many humanitarian immigrants we should receive in light of one of the world's more severe migrant crises in recent history. If this belief is questioned, allegations of racism are frequently levelled.

The second camp believes that we should slam the doors shut, that they are stealing our jobs and costing us too much in government programming, that they are all terrorists, and that they are different from us, and to think otherwise means one is a bleeding heart socialist.

Both of these positions are puerile.

To those who subscribe to the first school of thought, Canadians openly accept immigration to our country with two caveats, the first being that our immigration system is sound. Canadians expect our system of checks and balances to be rigorous and to ensure that those who would harm our country or try to enter it under false pretense are not allowed entrance. In this, the Liberal government's decision to lift our visa restriction on Mexico without the completion of a formal review that ensures proper processes are in place to prevent high levels of bogus refugee claims was poor policy.

Questioning if our immigration processes are adequately functional does not make someone a racist, nor does it mean that we do not want a positive relationship with a country such as Mexico. It reflects the fact that, prior to the visa restriction being imposed, Canada saw thousands of false refugee claims from this country and had security concerns regarding Mexican nationals seeking entrance to Canada.

A formal review would ask for our immigration officials to work with their Mexican counterparts to put processes in place to stop this from happening. It is a positive process, but it takes time. Instead, this government bowed to pressure from various industrial lobbies and lifted the visa. It claimed that increases in Mexican tourism to Canada and trade restrictions that Mexicans would lift in return would outweigh the cost of processing and deporting thousands of false refugee claimants.

Indeed, a notice from immigration officials in the Canada Gazette in late 2016 shows that, even after these anticipated economic benefits, the cost to the Canadian taxpayers for this decision would be upward of a quarter of a billion dollars. This does not instill confidence in our immigration system.

Similarly, when the Liberal government mused about performing security and health vetting on 25,000 Syrian refugees after they arrived in Canada as opposed to before, we voiced opposition. This is because deporting people after they have claimed refugee status in Canada is a difficult and costly process. This decision would have been unsafe and it eroded public confidence in our immigration system. As it stood, even so, this process was reviewed by an American Senate committee. Questioning security screening processes is not racist, and it does not mean Canada does not want to help. It is a sign of prudence and respect for Canadians.

The second caveat for Canadians to accept immigration is that they expect new immigrants to Canada to embrace our pluralism and integrate into our economic and social fabric. This means ensuring there is adequate government programming for refugees to learn skills, like being able to speak one of our official languages, so they do not become isolated and are able to obtain employment. These services cost money and take time to establish, so the government has a responsibility to be transparent to Canadians about these costs and to accordingly set out immigration levels.

This is why the government is required to table a report to Parliament every year that outlines the number of immigrants it wants to bring in under both the humanitarian and economic classes. The Liberal government changed the ratio of economic to humanitarian refugees from roughly 70:30 to 50:50. It is not racist of me, after hearing from out-of-work people in my constituency, as well as recent refugees who cannot access language training programs, to ask how the government is going to pay for dramatically increased levels of integration programming support.

The Liberal government has provided exactly zero public plans on how it plans to help 25,000 Syrian refugees integrate into our economy. Many of these refugees have not found employment. There is no budget for social assistance payments for those who find themselves unemployed after their one-year public transition funding runs out. There have been no increased payments to school boards to deal with the special needs of many of these refugee students. Refugees are relying on food banks. Why is this?

Asking these questions does not mean that Canada is not compassionate. It is exactly the opposite. Transparent plans and budgets for these issues are what give refugees the tools to be successful in Canada and in turn give social licence for allowing in more refugees in the future. The Liberals, in their hurry to fill a quota, have failed in much of this.

Also, we should question how we prioritize refugees and whether we should do that based on vulnerability. Canada cannot sustain an unlimited number of refugees, so we have to set caps and prioritize who we let in. It is not racist to acknowledge that people are refugees because of religious persecution, and while refugee situations imply that entire populations are at risk, there are subsets that are more vulnerable than others. This is why the Liberal government and the United Nations have abjectly failed refugees from persecuted minority groups in Syria and Iraq, many of whom are genocide victims. Yazidis, Christians, minority Muslim groups, and LGBTI have all suffered atrocities at the hands of extremists from the religious majority in the region. Indeed, the entire population in the region is at risk and is suffering. However, the fact remains that there are groups that cannot exist in refugee camps because they will be killed because of their religious beliefs.

Late last year, two senior UNHCR officials sat in my office and told me that one of the reasons that, out of 25,000 refugees, zero Yazidis had been referred to Canada was that because of the time constraints placed on them by the Liberal government it was easier to simply pull numbers from the religious majority located in refugee camps rather than to actively search out genocide victims.

Moreover, the Liberal Party used a game of one-upmanship in the last campaign, in terms of numbers of how many Syrian refugees would come into the country, to whip up whispered claims of racism on the part of our party. The quiet argument was made that we hate Muslim refugees because our immigration minister asked for an audit of how many persecuted ethnic and religious minority groups had been referred to Canada as government sponsored refugees by the United Nations.

While we did this, thousands of Yazidi women were being raped dozens of times a day by dozens of men all in the name of God. While we did this, genocide was occurring. While we did this, we forgot compassion in the name of bureaucratic simplicity and political gain. For shame on all of us.

We are all to be shamed because this brings me to the second polarized school of thought. As much as religion should not be excluded from the criteria for prioritization of refugees, if we are the enlightened society we purport to be, we should not preclude someone from entering our country solely on the grounds of his or her religious belief or country of origin. For eons we have been killing each other based on religion. In Canada, our pluralism is sustained by laws which separate church and state and harshly punish murder, rape, hate speech, and other actions which are often carried out in the name of one god or another.

I am a Christian. My closest friends are Jewish, Sikh, and Muslim. We talk about the fact that there are extremists in all of our faiths, for example, those who believe in creating inequality for and persecuting LGBT and women. In Canada, our freedom of religion allows us to believe whatever we want, but it does not afford us the right to act on those beliefs if they are criminal. Therefore, in that, completely shutting our doors to new immigrants is wrong.

Should we have an open and transparent debate about how many newcomers we welcome to Canada and under what circumstances they enter? Yes. Should we ensure that we are transparent in the costing and availability of integration programming in the context of the strength of our economy? Yes. Should we ensure that our security screening processes for entering Canada are vigorous and strong? Yes. Should we vigorously enforce our laws to ensure that crimes committed in the name of religion are harshly punished? Yes.

Should we ask why the Liberal government has shifted the responsibility from the privately sponsored refugee program solely onto the taxpayer-sponsored program this year and demand them to change that decision? Yes. Will shutting the doors to immigrants ensure that all religious hate crime in Canada stops and that all Canadians suddenly have jobs overnight? No.

The date on my grandmother's record of passage from Slovakia is May 1938. She found safe haven in Canada as a migrant during one of modern history's largest migrant crises. This is top of mind as I speak in this House today, two short generations later, as Canada's official opposition shadow minister for immigration.

Some of our greatest shames in our nation's history occurred when we failed to show compassion to those in need. The MS St. Louis and the Komagata Maru come to mind. Canada is a nation filled with those who have been persecuted and have worked to build a country that is a beacon of light in the capacity of humanity to do what is good, just, and beautiful. Completely shutting our doors to people based on their religion is the antithesis of this.

Many owners of job-creating companies, investors, innovators, and artists are newcomers to Canada. Closing our doors to those people with the thought that it will lower unemployment levels is a fallacy.

During the last election campaign, my party announced a policy that would create a tip line to report “barbaric cultural practices”. If we were truly concerned about the rights of women in the situations that this tip line was purportedly designed to prevent, then why did we present it wrapped in an us-versus-them message? Why would we cave to the allure of the same dog whistle politics that everyone else was and in doing so make things worse for the isolated, and inflaming and normalizing allegations of racism?

Today, there are those who purport to share my party affiliation that blur the discussion of fair criticism of the integration of our immigration system by politicizing a mass murder at a mosque and presenting undefined policy that could be interpreted that entry into Canada is dependent upon one's willingness to take a bite of a ham sandwich. Is this better than the Prime Minister's tweet stating that Canada is open to refugees, after steadfastly refusing to protect victims of genocide through military intervention or, at a minimum, prioritizing the resettlement of genocide victims? No. We are all complicit.

Reading and watching the western world's response to the atrocities that have occurred in Syria have confirmed serious broad systemic failures that make me question if “never again” is really anything more than a platitude. Do we actually have the capacity to respond to the breakdown of humanity and under what circumstances do we care if it does?

On this front, contemporary students of history often “tsk tsk” when confronted with times when the ruling class became grossly disconnected with the proletariat. Broadly speaking, modern westerners are smug that this let-them-eat-cake style decadence could not befall us. Yet our system of capitalism and democratic institutions have given way to global prosperity and sustained peace. Two generations removed from global conflict, this is today's foolish immutable certainty.

After this year, I wonder if this has grown into an entitlement.

With increasing frequency, we let our values become someone else's problem, if we care at all. Nobody wants to do that job? No worries, there is a temporary foreign worker for that. Want to shut down extractive industries in Canada but enjoy the same quality of opportunity? Those with dirty jobs can just transition into something else. In the meantime, the government will borrow and spend to keep us afloat and we can depend on it instead of ourselves. After all, it is cheap to borrow money right now, is it not? Besides, we can always cut military spending because peace comes without cost and war does not happen to us.

There has been perhaps no greater indictment of the rise of western decadence than our response to the Syrian conflict. Between trying to appease unappeasable foes, the woeful response to the migrant crisis—racist versus socialist instead of searching for pragmatism—and explaining away the issue as a quagmire that we should not get involved in or that we were the ones that caused the problem, so let us just stay out of it and hope that fixes it, in the last five years, hundreds of thousands of humans have been slaughtered and displaced. Women's rights, minority rights, and human rights in general have been violated. Genocide has occurred. It has also become taboo to question the efficacy of the institutions that we have put in place to prevent these things.

The UN has been toothless in its approach to many things, but its failure to Syrians and the Yazidi genocide victims should light the world on fire in terms of its desire to see its functionality changed. Instead, its actors are fiddling with the politics of who gets a seat on the Security Council while Aleppo burns.

With great irony, this has all happened while we have become globally interconnected. Aleppo is no longer somewhere else; it is live on our Twitter feed. Yet, we treat these images, videos of slaughter of our fellow humans, as akin to some sort of third player video game, that is, if we bother to consider them at all.

The reality is that the west does not have the luxury of assuming that the crisis in Syria does not affect us. It has shown us, and those who do not share the institutions of democracy and free markets that sustain our peace, that we have forgotten that power is taken, not given.

Across governments and political flavour, we now believe that we are entitled to our peace. We also believe that our western brand of blind ideological extremism can solve problems when it has mostly gridlocked us into an echo chamber. This translates into foreign policy that has a key objective of being unobjectionable and utilizes the assumption that religious extremists and rogue despots can be bought or appeased into submission.

Moreover, it has shown the world that we cannot be bothered when humanity and civilization completely disintegrate, because hey, it is not happening to us.

If we do not find a way to challenge the status quo of polarized political dogma, our selective antipathy to the human condition and the abject failure of our western political institutions to prevent atrocities, future generations will likely be “tsk tsking” us, too. That assumes that in our selfish decadence we have left them any sort of society that has the capacity to do so.

Each of us needs to be ashamed of how our political motivations, our selfishness, our decadence, and our political gamesmanship has led us to this place of polarized debate that we are today.

Our only redemption can be found in an ask for forgiveness and an understanding that global peace comes with a cost that is not just borne by our military. As much as we may seek to fling our doors wide open to refugees, we cannot ignore the threat of those who seek to destroy our way of life, and we cannot turn a blind eye when it comes to protecting those in regions who share our ideals from annihilation. This comes with initiatives that create global economic prosperity and sustainability, the costs of which are borne by those of us who find ourselves with the fortune of living in countries of great pluralism.

How can Canada be a leader in pluralism policy best practice? Let us ensure that the debate within our own nation pulls beyond two unproductive polarized fallacies, protects the safety of Canadians, grows our economy, and shows the compassion of our people. Let us support free trade and support those who support the rights of the marginalized and refugees around the world.

If we cannot do better and we only seek to politicize situations of great gravity, then we are doomed to repeat the sins of our past.

In closing, I hope that none of us here will resign ourselves to be complicit. Instead, let us find guidance in our capacity to create beauty and art. In doing so, we advance our cause forward because of our humanity, not because of our political stripe.