Debates of Jan. 31st, 2017

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member, of course, is correct when he said that people make their own choices. The United States has, and it has actually put forward a ban based on race, religion, and place of birth.

We have a choice as Canadian representatives and leaders of our own communities. The choice is before us. Will we be bystanders and say that this is okay, business as usual, and just carry on and be calm, or are we going to say no to this hatred and this divisive kind of policy? Are we going to actually hold true to what we all saw and said in the House in light of the Quebec City horrible incident, that we will stand with those who face hate, that we will challenge it, and we will put a path forward?

Will the member support the NDP proposals that we have tabled today?

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP members talk about standing together, but their rhetoric and volume says that they will do anything but that. Certainly we have heard enough of that here tonight.

We stand here tonight as Canadians. We know that we have the best country in the world. We welcome people from around the world. Our government did that, and the current government has done that as well.

My message tonight is that the government needs to take responsibility for the people it is allowing in here, and provide them with the programming and the opportunities they need in order to become integrated into our Canadian society.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I was elected just over a year ago and that the atmosphere in the House of Commons has rarely been as sombre as it has been since the tragic events that occurred in Quebec City.

To build on what my colleague just said, there is no doubt that Canada is a country of immigrants. The story of my ancestors is the same as that of many Canadians. I am proud to say that my family is one of the oldest immigrant families in Canada, even though people cannot tell just by looking at me.

My story is that of the Germans who came to Canada during the War of American Independence. The British hired 30,000 German mercenaries, one-third of whom were based in Quebec. In the end, 1,200 German soldiers decided to be part of the population of Quebec beginning in the 1780s. Today, many Germans have families made up exclusively of Canadians or Quebeckers. I am talking about the Bessette, Besré, Hamel, Jomphe, Payeur, Roussel, Wagner, Wilhelmy, and of course the Berthold families.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that Canada is a welcoming country. People from around the world have helped to shape Canada into the country that it is today. Those who choose to come to Canada do so for all sorts of reasons, not always because of our climate, but because of our people, our values, the prospect of success, and, most of all, the opportunity to live a better life.

In Canada, immigration is not just a matter of statistics. We are not here to figure out which government Canadians think does a better job. I believe that the important thing is the way we welcome immigrants and our ability to help them in this important life choice. That is important to every immigrant who chooses our country.

This evening, we are gathered here to debate Canada's response to our neighbour's decision to temporarily ban from the United States nationals from seven countries where thousands of people have been the victims of war, dictatorship, misery, and poverty over the past few years. The countries in question are Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

Earlier, I was planning to deliver a very different speech, but because of my colleagues' remarks this evening, I decided to change course. I listened to my colleagues talk about refugees, victims of war and misery. I listened to my colleagues talk about what is going on elsewhere. I listened to my colleagues talk about other people.

I was really struck by something that was said by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, who is the official opposition's immigration critic. She said that Canada is a destination of choice for refugees from around the world because it is a peaceful country. My colleague rightly wondered whether we are taking that peace for granted.

That brought another thought to mind: what if it were us? If we were talking about our fathers, our mothers, our sisters, and our neighbours tonight, would we be saying the same things? Imagine war breaking out in Thetford Mines. Imagine witnessing the systematic extermination of citizens, of our neighbours, because of their race, their beliefs, or their political affiliation.

I invite Canadians to imagine what their neighbourhood would look like if their street was bombed; if businesses were destroyed one after the other; if they suddenly lost their jobs, had no food, and did not have the means to earn some money. Let us imagine that we no longer had a roof over our heads. Let us imagine that we lost contact with every member of our family and that we did not know where they were, whether they were dead or had been tortured, or whether our sisters and mothers had been raped. Let us imagine that all our family members had to flee their city, no matter where in Canada, to ensure their safety and survival.

When we put ourselves in the shoes of the people who live with this reality every day, and we picture the images and faces of our loved ones, we cannot look at refugees in the same way.

We can imagine asking for help and hoping that someone, somewhere, will answer our call for help.

Of course, we are here to talk about the U.S. decision, which we unfortunately can do little about. Our Prime Minister responded by taking to social media. Canada's response, according to the Prime Minister's tweet, was as follows: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength. #WelcomeToCanada.”

These are fine words, which elicit more images. However, that will not change the lives of the people we want to help. Since that tweet, there has been no concrete action, no political or administrative gesture to make these words reach those they should really be intended for.

I listened earlier to the speech by the new Minister of Immigration, whom I congratulate on his appointment. I heard him give a speech on what Canada is doing on immigration. It was a self-congratulatory speech that did not provide any concrete solutions to the current situation.

There are things that could have been done a year ago. There are things that we could do now to speed things up. Unfortunately, itsseems that the government has done nothing, despite having many opportunities to take action. Of course the government cannot give a response in 140 characters. Governments do not make commitments in 140 characters. It is possible, however, to be more proactive and do certain things.

Let me give a few examples.

Consider the Yazidi refugees, a subject the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship did not even bother to address in his speech this evening, despite everything we have talked about in the House regarding the importance of taking action to help Yazidi refugees. It took my colleague asking a question for the immigration minister to finally bother addressing the situation facing Yazidi refugees. Despite the unanimous motion that was adopted here last October on fast-tracking refugee claims and the promise to process them within 120 days, we have yet to see any concrete action. The Liberals are all talk and no action. Not one new Yazidi refugee has been welcomed here in Canada.

We want tangible action, not just vague promises. The government committed to taking action within 120 days of the adoption of the motion. The deadline is February 22. The government must set a target for the number of Yazidi refugees. The government must fast-track the asylum claims of Yazidi victims of ISIS so that they may find refuge in Canada.

ISIS continues to commit genocide against the Yazidis in northern Iraq. Thousands of Yazidi women and girls are being detained by ISIS soldiers. They are being raped, beaten, and sold as slaves. We must act. Unlike the Liberal government, the Conservatives in the official opposition are not afraid to call these crimes by their name: genocide.

In closing, the official opposition has made several suggestions and recommendations to the government to help it provide a concrete response and tangible assistance to the Yazidi refugees and to respond in our own way to recent developments south of the border.

I invite the government to go over the various proposals that the official opposition has made in the past, to act immediately, and to show compassion toward these Yazidi refugees, these women who are being tortured, raped, and used as slaves by ISIS. This is a tangible response to what is happening with our neighbours to the south.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard this word “courage” mentioned several times tonight.

Let me say that courage is not what one does when the cameras are on or when a country passes a policy that contradicts or is not consistent with the progressive traditions of this country. Courage is what people do when they need to act systematically and consistently to solve crises regardless of whether or not the world's media are talking about it.

This country, a year ago, let in 40,000 Syrian refugees. The courage of the other two parties was demonstrated in their campaign commitments: 10,000 from the NDP, 10,000, afraid of the backlash; and the party across the way that just finished the question committed to 11,800 over two years. That is not courage; that is cowardice.

The government has acted, not when the world's cameras were focused on it. The government is systematically tripling the number of refugees we have the capacity for, making sure refugees right across the globe are provided with assistance and refuge in this country, setting goals, not caps.

Does the member opposite not wish he had run for this party with the sentiments he just expressed? This party has the courage of its convictions, and this party is the party that is settling refugees.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, shouting or trying to show the world that they are better than others is no way to achieve the best results. Let us not forget that the 40,000 refugees that were brought into Canada last year were approved by the previous government. The Liberals seem to forget that. They fail to mention that, but that is the reality. That is what we did. We came up with the private sponsorship program and it worked. In fact, the initial images he is criticizing were images of refugees that had been approved by the previous government.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was surprised by the government's tone in this debate.

The government is talking about the 10,000 refugees that it promised would arrive before December 31. How many refugees did it succeed in bringing to Canada by December 31? Approximately 10,000. It was simply a realistic promise to say that 10,000 refugees would be brought to Canada by December 31. The government promised that 25,000 refugees would be brought here. The 25,000 arrived three months later in 2016. I hope that the government will change its tone. It is not really the tone that I was hoping to hear today.

I am wondering whether my colleague thinks that the ideal response would be to compensate for the United States' decision by welcoming more refugees to Canada, thus sending the international community a clear message that, if our neighbour and ally does not want to take in any more refugees, we will compensate for that and meet our international obligations. We are going to ensure that our country takes a more active role in protecting refugees if our neighbour does not want to do so.

Is this not the time to compensate and send a strong message like that to the international community?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government members' attitude seems to suggest that they are really angry this evening. They are angry because they failed to meet the needs of refugees. That is what is happening. There is a very attractive and appropriate solution and that is a unanimous motion of the House of Commons to take action and welcome more Yazidi refugees. I think that would be a way of taking immediate action tonight and doing something tangible rather than getting angry about attacks on this government's image.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Hypocrisy makes my skin crawl, Madam Speaker.

Some people are making comments and using tragic situations to score political points, saying things that are completely false, and trying to lecture to a government that has accepted 40,000 Syrian refugees. It is shameful to hear things like that from the other side of the House. I am a Syrian Canadian myself, and after 40,000 Syrians have come here, you are telling me that the current government is doing nothing. What do you have to say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I would remind the member that he must address his questions and comments to the Speaker.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable can give a very brief response, for his time is up.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, if hypocrisy makes one's skin crawl, mine has been crawling nonstop for the past year.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

It has been for 10 years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that when another member is speaking, members must respect that.

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for initiating this debate.

I want to change the tone of the debate a little, first because it should be non-partisan and, second and more important, because there are lessons to be learned from this debate. I have heard a lot of congratulatory comments tonight about how Canada is different, how in Canada we have had this incredible tradition of bringing in immigrants and refugees, and that we have always done it. While it is true that in the last few decades we have had a very good tradition of bringing in immigrants and refugees to this country, that has not always been true.

I got into federal politics from municipal politics a few years ago. Why did I do so? One of the important reasons was Quebec's charter of values. The separatist government in Quebec put forward a law that said that, as a mayor, I had to fire people because they were going to wear a kippah, a hijab, or a turban to work. In my conscience and the conscience of my council in the city of Côte-Saint-Luc, we could not do that. We held a rally for religious freedom on the steps of our city hall, bringing together people and religious leaders from all faiths to say no, because that is not Canadian.

The fact that we lived this only a couple of years ago in my home province of Quebec means that Canadian governments, provincial governments, and politicians are no different here from politicians elsewhere. People can always capitalize on xenophobia. People can always spark fear in the population.

We are so lucky to live in a country where all three major parties share the view that Canada is a place where immigrants and refugees should be welcomed and that we should care about people, whatever their race, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. We should all be happy about that.

When it comes time for me to talk about the U.S. executive order, which is the subject of the debate, I want to first say that, of course, as quasi-Americans, since we all watch U.S. TV, listen to U.S. pundits, watch the election campaign with the same intensity that our colleagues down south did, we also have to remember that we are not American and we do not have the rights that the people in the U.S. do to choose their president.

While I am profoundly shocked by what is in this executive order, it is an American decision. I applaud the protestors at airports, I applaud those in Congress who are fighting this, and I applaud those who are going to court, but I want to look at this executive order as if somebody proposed it in Canada and then comment on it as if a Canadian politician proposed this.

What are the things we should learn about this order? Number one, one does not put forward executive orders without consultation. One does not forget to ask the state department and the people who work there, who are the experts, what the ramifications are of an executive order. One does not forget to ask the attorney general, who has to defend an executive order in court, whether it complies with the constitution or laws of one's country. One does not forget to consult with the enormous number of stakeholders who would be concerned with such an order. I hope that in Canada, before our executive acts, it will always consult with Parliament, parliamentary committees, and other groups that have interest in it before taking action.

Number two, one cannot put forward executive orders that impact people who are already in transit with valid visas issued by oneself. Orders should not be made retroactively. People have a right to depend on government laws being in place for a period of time and the right to travel without wondering if, when they get to their country with which they have a visa, they are going to be excluded.

Number three, one does not discriminate based on country of origin or religion, when making law. One does not say that just because people are born in one country, are citizens of only one country, or come from only one religious group because there is an exemption for those who are from religious minorities, they are excluded from a country. That is not what I believe in, and I do not think any of us do.

This is where I want to draw our history to everyone's attention. We have to remember that we in Canada have done this, as has the U.S. in the past. There have been many times in our history when the United States has been more welcoming than Canada. We should not congratulate ourselves on just being better than everyone else. There was a period of time when Chinese were excluded from the right to immigrate to Canada. So were other Asians, Sikhs, Hindus, and people from all over Asia. Eastern Europeans were discriminated against. Southern Europeans were discriminated against in the 1920s and 1930s.

I come from the Jewish community. We all remember that when the Jewish community needed Canada the most, in the thirties, when Hitler was in power, the doors of Canada were closed to Jewish refugees. Irving Abella's None is Too Many is a wonderful book that explains what happened; but let us talk about the process of the St. Louis.

The St. Louis was a ship that came out of Hamburg in May 1939 with people who had valid visas to Cuba. They were celebrating. They were going to be saved from what was happening to them, being persecuted in Germany. Yet, when they arrived in Havana harbour, Cuba unilaterally changed its rules and invalidated what, until then, were valid visas for these immigrants coming to Cuba. That is what happens when we retroactively change things. Cuba denied entry, and so the ship steamed up toward the United States, with the hope that the United States would open its doors; but the United States did not open its doors. Then there was just one hope before they went back to Europe, and that was Canada—and Mr. Blair and Mr. King closed the doors of Canada to those refugees.

I hope one day a Canadian government will apologize for what happened with the St. Louis.

We have to remember that this can happen here. Coming to the end of my speech, one of the things I want to say is that we should always remember that this could happen here. We have to be vigilant.

Second, we have to look at what happened in the order. I think the government acted appropriately by clarifying, immediately, that Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada should not be affected by the order. That was the appropriate first thing to do.

Then we have to look at whether we increase the number of privately sponsored refugees or allow more refugees into Canada as a result. I think the government should be open to considering raising the number of privately sponsored refugees. I think the total number of refugees would have to be an international agreement because we cannot, unilaterally, react to what one country does when we are just one small country of the globe. I think we should be talking to our international counterparts to see if there is an international action.

With respect to the safe third country agreement, I want to say that I have looked into this and I do not see where, right now, somebody could be impacted by being refused entry to the United States as a refugee, having reached the shores of the United States, and then come to Canada—that is where this would apply. The minister has an obligation to look at all four pillars of the agreement on an ongoing basis. I am assuming that he will. If we see the United States actually refusing people who reached its shores according to international conventions from being considered to be refugees over the next 120 days, I am confident the minister will react. At this point, what I understand from the United States is that it is not acting that way to people who reach its shores, but it is something important to consider.

I thank the NDP for raising this issue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his passionate speech.

In remembering the history, there is no question there are many lessons to be learned. It is ironic, is it not, that the Trump edict actually came on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?

Having said that, what are we going to do about it here in Canada?

The member talked about a lot of things, but I want to touch on the safe third country agreement. The issue is this. When people get into the United States, which is deemed to be a safe country under this agreement, they cannot make application for refugee status to Canada or anywhere else. That is the reality. When we have a country that has declared, “You are banned; you are not welcome; and we don't want you because of where you come from, because of your race, and because of your religion”, would they feel safe there? Would we feel safe there? Would we not want to leave? However, they are not allowed to come to Canada and make application for refugee status because of this agreement.

Under those circumstances, should we not immediately suspend the agreement?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, if the United States were to take action, with respect to refugees who have reached the shores of the United States, and act in a way that is not compliant with the international treaties, then I believe the minister would have to consider that the treaty was not being respected and would have to take that action. My understanding, and this is where this decree needs to be clarified, is that the United States is not taking that action, with respect to people who reach the shores of the United States. It is stopping action on accepting refugees from abroad who are applying to come to the United States under a long process. It is not doing that, at this point, in my understanding of what I can read, with respect to people who reach the shores of the United States.

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

Madam Speaker, in the strongest possible terms, I want to commend the member. I know he is someone who takes his responsibilities very seriously and always says exactly what he thinks, and that is what we need more of in this place. I want to ask him to comment on this issue of the clarification with respect to Canadians. We have heard from the government that the Americans have told the government that Canadian citizens will not have an issue. On the other hand, we have heard from Canadians who are very concerned because although we have this assurance, the executive order is anything but clear on this issue and there is the possibility that those Canadians who are now in the United States will not be able to re-enter the United States after leaving.

Has the government received this in writing? Maybe the member does not know whether the cabinet has received this in writing, but I would appreciate it if he could share his thoughts with respect to this clarification, and how clear it is.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the very lucid comments from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

With respect to Canada's obligations, Canada's number one obligation is with respect to our citizens in permanent residence and their ability to travel freely throughout the United States. Based on what the minister has said tonight, and I want to congratulate my colleague, the new Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, my understanding is that Canada has indeed received such assurances. I certainly hope we will receive them in writing as well. We need to clarify what was in this very poorly drafted and ambiguous decree.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to join my colleagues on all sides of the House in congratulating the member for Mount Royal for a very passionate and thoughtful speech. However, on the last point with respect to the safe third country agreement, Professor Arbel, a University of British Columbia law professor who studied that, said that if Canada takes its refugee protection obligations seriously, “then that comes with a mandate to re-evaluate whether we can adequately consider the United States to be a safe country for refugees, and I think we cannot. And the logical corollary of that would be that we have to scrap the Safe Third Country Agreement.” She said that, as did the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers in the clearest terms, as did the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

That is good enough for us. Why is it not good enough for the member?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister has an ongoing obligation under that agreement to evaluate that the United States satisfies four criteria. From what I have read from the U.S., my understanding is that it is not taking any action to not comply with international treaties for those who reach the United States. In my own reading, I believe that it is still compliant, as the minister said tonight, but he has an ongoing obligation to evaluate, and if in the end we see that something is happening which is contradictory to the international treaties, I am confident my colleague will take action.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I thank my colleague from Mount Royal for sharing his time with me. He is such a passionate speaker, as we all just witnessed. He is definitely a hard act to follow.

I am sure that most members in this House would agree that this is a critical time in the world, but despite this act of the United States, in addition to the act of terror we saw only a few days ago, Canada continues to show compassion, and Canada continues to show love. I am extremely proud of the response that the Prime Minister gave to the executive order when he said that Canada's doors would be open, particularly to those in need and to those who were displaced by the executive order.

There is no doubt that we are experiencing perhaps the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. A quarter of a million people have died in civil war and more have been wounded. Inside Syria, 13.5 million people need urgent help, 6.5 million are internally displaced, and 4.8 million have fled.

However, our response and the response of Canadians, the generosity of Canadians throughout the country, and the action of this government have led to nearly $1 billion in humanitarian aid. Canadians individually have donated over $30 million, which has been matched by the federal government. I think the crisis has actually brought out the best in us.

In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, over 200 refugees from Syria have relocated to Kingston and have made it their home. It is the diversity in Canada that we value so much, because we realize that our diversity actually makes us stronger.

There was a very interesting scenario a couple of months ago when I was at an event where people were being acknowledged for all the work that they were doing to help the Syrians come to Canada. I had the opportunity to stand up and speak. I thanked the individual organizations for their work, the United Way, the Rotary Club, the other organizations that participated, the individuals who have come forward to show their kindness. I thanked them for doing what they did for the Syrians to bring them to Canada and to Kingston.

After that event, a gentleman came up to me and said, “You did a really good job of thanking everybody for what they did, but you never thanked the Syrians for coming to Canada.” I did not quite understand that at first, and then he explained something which made so much sense. When we think about those refugees who are moving across the globe, who have made a decision to take their families and leave, who have travelled by boat, who have stayed in refugee camps, who have fought the systems to get to a safe place, these are the exact people we want in our communities. These are the people who make our communities strong, who drive the economic engines of communities. That is why diversity, accepting immigrants and accepting refugees from throughout the world, is so critically important.

I myself am the product of two immigrants, whose parents chose to come to Canada in the 1950s after the Second World War when much of Europe was displaced.

Tonight we are talking about the executive order more specifically, and while this is a time of uncertainty for some, the Government of Canada is working with the American administration to get clarity on the impact of the recent executive order. The minister has already addressed a number of key questions, but the government will continue to engage officials in the American administration to gather more information and keep Canadians informed.

While we continue to seek clarity, I can assure this House that nothing has changed regarding Canada's attitude towards immigration and humanitarian treatment of those in need of protection.

It is important to point out that the United States has always been a strong ally in helping to resettle vulnerable and persecuted people from around the world. Along with Canada and Australia, the United States has been one of the top three refugee resettlement countries for a number of years now. We understand that the new administration has paused parts of its resettlement program to review its policy. We will continue to be in close contact with the U.S. and look forward to the analysis that it will bring forward when it is finished this process.

In the meantime, we will continue to engage the U.S. and other close allies around the world, including the United Nations Refugee Agency, to move forward on meeting resettlement commitments.

In short, Canada's commitment to refugees will continue to focus on the most vulnerable, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Canada has always played a role and will continue to do so. As the Prime Minister often says, diversity is our strength. The Prime Minister has also pointed out that Canada's policy on refugees and immigration is open yet also rigorous, focusing on making sure that the processes are followed and that security is always strongly addressed.

The recent executive order issued by the U.S. administration has caused some people to ask the government how the order may affect Canada's refugee and in-Canada asylum policies. For example, some people are wondering if the order will affect the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, as we have heard repeatedly asked tonight. Under this agreement, refugee claimants are expected to make their claims in the first country in which they enter unless they qualify for an exemption. This principle is recognized by the United Nations Refugee Agency.

The safe third country agreement remains an important tool for Canada and the U.S. to work together on the orderly handling of refugee claims made in our countries. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the continual review of the countries designated as safe third countries. The purpose of the review process is to ensure that the conditions that led to the designation as a safe third country continue to be met. The Government of Canada has no indication, to my understanding, that the executive order has had any impact on the American asylum system.

The minister has said, as we have heard, that he will continue to monitor the situation, but in the meantime, the safe third country agreement remains in effect. Canada has, and will continue to have, a strong asylum system that provides protection for those in genuine need of it. It has safeguards to ensure that those who would face harm are not sent back to persecution. I strongly believe that this will not change.

As I get to the end of my speech, I would like to say that it is always easy to pull back and we are seeing that in other parts of the world. We are seeing countries pull back. Canada has had numerous examples of where we have not made that decision and instead where we have been the welcoming beacon of hope for many different refugees throughout the world. As a new country in the early 20th century, we accepted thousands of persecuted Jews. Between 1947 and 1952, one-quarter of a million displaced Europeans came to Canada. In 1956, 37,000 Hungarians escaped Soviet tyranny. In 1968 and 1969, we welcomed 11,000 Czech refugees. Between 1970 and 1980, more than 60,000 boat people found refuge in Canada after the Vietnam war. In 1999, Canada took over 5,000 Kosovars.

As President Obama said when he was here, the world needs more Canada, and I could not agree more. I said earlier that both my parents are immigrants and as said by another colleague earlier tonight, unless we are of aboriginal descent or belong to one of our first nations, we are all immigrants. We have all come here and contributed to this country to make it so great and to make it what it is.

My grandfather lived in Holland and spent the latter part of the Second World War in hiding. As a Dutch man, he worried as the Germans were going through Amsterdam literally pulling men from their families to work in factories. He spent two years in hiding. When he finally was liberated and walked on the streets of Amsterdam for the first time in about two years, it was Canadian soldiers that he encountered. That is when he decided that he would move his family to Canada.

That is the reputation we have around the world. The world knows that Canada is open and the world knows that Canada is willing to accept people in need. I could not have been prouder of the way our Prime Minister responded, albeit there has been criticism over the medium that was used, but he was quick to say and quick to remind the world that Canada would be there in the time of need for the most vulnerable.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Quebec immigration lawyers association, and some 200 law professors have all written to say that the government needs to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement in light of the unbelievable, alarming ban that the Trump administration has put in place.

The minister and the government argue that we do not need to do that because we have not seen anything that will really affect this at this moment. Let me ask the member this question. He said he comes from a family of immigrants. If that ban impacted you and you were in that country at this moment—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address the Chair.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Through you, Madam Speaker, let us put that in the case of all of us. If we were one of those individuals being targeted with hate and derision, would we not want a country like Canada to say that we would lift this ban so we could make an application to have refugee status in Canada?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has asked this question a number of times tonight. I hope she is not disappointed that I might not be the one to give her the answer she is looking for.

It is important to point out that the government has made it very clear what its position is on this, that it will continue to accept refugees who are affected by this travel ban.

More so, and I spoke about this in my speech, there is a mechanism within the agreement to continually review it, and it is up to the minister to do that. I have great faith that he will do that and at the right time make the necessary decisions so it is in the best interest of those who are fleeing other parts of the world looking for safe harbour.

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

Madam Speaker, I am only able now to rise for the first time to address the substance of this debate, having been here for several hours. I am grateful to have a chance to put a question to the member for Kingston and the Islands.

While we have been debating, I received an email from a 19-year-old young woman in my riding who wrote me this. Her name is Rachel, and I did not get permission to use her last name. I will read this for Rachel. She wants her voice heard.

I do not want to have to explain to my future children that I was alive when refugees were turned away from the United States while Canada did nothing. I understand that some statements have been made; however, I believe that action needs to be taken....I would like to ask you to try to ensure that we are on the right side of history.

I applaud so much what the Liberal government has done in bringing in 40,000 Syrian refugees. I appreciate the Prime Minister taking an early stand, and the symbolism is profound that our new Minister of Immigration is himself a refugee originally from Somalia. However, symbolism and good wishes will not be enough. Amnesty International is right. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers is right. The 200 law professors who signed the a are correct. We need to take action proactively before people are caught in the jaws of a reckless and discriminatory government.

The Prime Minister does not have to attack the President of the United States. He can try to have good relations. However, by our actions, we will be known.