Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to hear from Conservative members who try to give a false impression. When Harper was the prime minister, of those returning from abroad who were accused of different things, from what I understand, not one was charged by the RCMP.

We have not only better legislation through Bill C-59, and outstanding work from this government on that project, but we have also seen charges being laid by RCMP and in at least 50% of them there have been convictions. I see that as a positive thing. This government not only talks about it, but actually does something about it. Contrast that to the Conservatives, who cut almost one billion dollars that dealt with issues such as terrorism. Could the member explain the hypocrisy to me?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, late in the mandate under the previous government, the law allowed for people to be charged for travelling to commit terrorist offences or to be involved in terrorism. Three individuals were charged under the previous government and we have to appreciate it was late in the mandate that this came into effect. One of those individuals went to trial this summer. The other two are presumed dead. That information is completely contrary to what the member across the way would have us believe and who likes to mislead the House in the best of times.

As far as the funding, it is appropriate to say the funding increased for front-line operations for RCMP and national security by one third in the decade that the Conservatives were in government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the response across the way when my friend actually tells the truth. Liberals are laughing and think it is a joke. The reality is that their talking points have been off all day, because people have been charged. They were charged when the Conservative government was in power. Three of them were charged, two of them are presumed to be dead, the other person went to trial and, as far as I know, that trial is ongoing.

The Liberals can do what they want to mislead people. I hear them heckling across the way right now trying to disrupt the proceedings this afternoon, but their talking points consistently today have been inaccurate. I do not know why they would mislead people on terrorism-related issues. I wonder why that would happen. We know full well how weak they are on this very issue.

I want to talk about the last part of our motion today. We have talked a lot about ISIS. We talked a lot about Liberals giving taxpayers' dollars to terrorists for that kind of thing, trying to reintegrate and welcome terrorists back into Canada and working with other countries to bring Canadian citizens of convenience back here. Our country is volunteering to help when the citizens' own countries do not want them to come back.

I want to talk about a bit of a different issue this afternoon than some other people have spoken of, and that is about the plan that Liberals are supposed to bring forward in 45 days. Liberals have said they are apparently going to support this motion we have brought forward, which calls for a plan to bring to justice anyone in Canada who has Canadian citizenship and has fought as a terrorist or participated in terrorist activities.

I would like to discuss the repatriation plan and the people and places that are most impacted by what has happened. Those would be the victims and those who have become refugees. I think the government should consider this in its plan for the future, because we are not only dealing with terrorists but with the impact on many other people as well. In the future, we need to address these people in a way that will deal with some of the problems we have faced in the past.

We are familiar with a number of communities that were not treated fairly over the past few years in terms of ISIS attacks and the conflict. Those included the Christian communities on the Nineveh Plains, the Copts, the Yazidi community and many of the minority Muslim communities. I am going to talk a bit about that for a few minutes.

It is interesting that the government is pursuing reintegration for people who claim to hate the very values of our country. Those who have left here to pursue other, more violent applications of their own twisted values were a part of this conflict that imposed so much violence, death and rape on so many minority communities. As I mentioned, it particularly hit the Yazidi communities and the implications of this violence on them are probably a little more well known than the impact of the violence on some of the Christian communities on the Nineveh Plains, the pressure on the Copts, for example, and Sunni Muslim communities in that area as well.

The government is now actively trying to bring some of these people back to Canada. It is a very strange thing and such a contrast in how it dealt with the victims of these terrorists. They are trying to find ways to welcome these terrorists back, reintegrate them, get them poetry classes and counselling and those kinds of things, but it is not as concerned about the victims of these people at all, especially those who have been targeted because of their religious or ethnic positions.

Eighty per cent of the world's population still faces high or very high levels of persecution because of faith issues around the globe. We are familiar here with what happened, which was that ISIS swept across northern Iraq and into Syria, devastating many of the minority communities. Some people ended up in UN camps as refugees. The larger minority groups ended up there, but a lot of the smaller minority groups could not find their way into the camps because the camps were not safe for them in a conflict area, so they were in other places, private homes or outside the camps, trying to survive.

The Prime Minister was clear that he was not interested in helping those who were affected by this conflict primarily because of their specific religious and ethnic communities. In fact, in October of 2015, he made a statement that was of either arrogance or ignorance. It was unbelievable. When asked twice if he would prioritize religious and ethnic minorities in terms of bringing refugees here, he gave a long lecture about he expressed his disapproval of anyone who would use refugees in a photo op. I thought that was ironic given what we saw later. He said that clearly to him, the idea of prioritizing religious and ethnic communities in terms of bringing them here because of belonging to those communities was disgusting, that it did not contribute to the Canada he wants to build and that his government would absolutely not go along with that.

That is a strange type of response to the type of vicious persecution that was taking place at the time. That persecution was taking place specifically because of the religious and ethnic identity of those communities. That is the very reason the communities were targeted. The government has said that is the very reason we are not going to consider the fact that they should perhaps get priority in coming to this country.

When the Liberals wanted to set up their post-election PR refugee program, where did they go? They went into the UN camps and found the people who were in the camps there, but at the same time, they left the most vulnerable refugee communities unexplored in terms of bringing people here and giving them a new start in Canada. That involved the Yazidis at the time.

We are familiar with the struggle we have had in this House to try to convince the Liberals that there was actually a serious issue around the Yazidi community. They have finally bent on that. They really have not gone very far in helping those folks, but at least they acknowledged that there was a problem, in the end. The other communities did not get that same consideration. That had to be deliberate, because the Prime Minister said specifically that this was how he was going to address it.

The real cynicism arises when we see the Liberals changing their position on something simply because it suits them. I have an example of this. Referring to the Middle East and what was happening on the Nineveh Plains, the Prime Minister said that they would not bring people here based on their religious and ethnic identities. The Liberals made every attempt to make sure that did not take place.

It is interesting that when it affects them, all of a sudden, they take a different position. I want to bring up something that happened a couple of weeks ago here in the House. There has been a group of Sikh and Hindu refugees in India who have tried to get recognition for the persecution they face in Afghanistan, which has been very specific to their religion. The Liberals had virtually no interest in this issue at all. They had no interest in bringing them here until three weeks ago, when our leader was in Indian and met with the group and assured them of our concern and that we would follow up on it.

It was interesting that the first day back in the House, one of the Liberal members asked a question, saying, “Sikh and Hindu minorities in Afghanistan face constant persecution, discrimination and violence. Thousands have been forced to flee, and many are living in very precarious conditions”. He asked the minister to “update the House on the status of the effort to resettle [these] vulnerable...refugees”.

The response was very specific. The minister said:

We are deeply concerned about Afghan, Hindu and Sikh minorities in Afghanistan.... we understand that these particular refugees are at particular risk, and that is why we have been working very closely...not only to identify them but also to expand resettlement opportunities in Canada.

We are glad to see the Liberals finally coming to the position the Conservative Party has held all along. When people are targeted for persecution because of their religious or ethnic identities, they should be considered, and that should be a factor in whether they get to come to our country.

I know my time is running out, and I am sorry that is the case. It is hard not to be very cynical about this group of Liberals. Their concern and their reaction are always about themselves, not about Canadians. We see that they will do what works for them. Canadians have an opportunity to let them know that this does not work for them when they have this openness to bringing terrorists back here. The Liberals are excited about being able to reintegrate them into this community, but they are much more reluctant to bring the most vulnerable groups here, to identify them by the very nature of the persecution that is taking place against them and then give them an opportunity to come to Canada.

I am going to try to hold these people accountable over the next few months, when they bring the reintegration plan into place, to make sure that they are not creating a situation where Canadians are unsafe but are creating a situation where some of the most vulnerable minorities can be taken care of ahead of the terrorists who are returning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine the alarm-and-panic button that was sounded earlier this afternoon when the whip's office on the other side of the House discovered that we would be voting in favour of this motion. The Conservatives would have had to run around changing all their talking points, which they are clearly doing now.

The reality of the situation is that when we look at issues like this, we do not look at them through an ideological lens. We look at the practical realities of it, and this is a motion that can be supported by this side of the House.

I am glad the member on the other side brought up Yazidi women and the hardships that so many people face. The reality of the situation is that we, in the Liberal government, have provided a home to 1,400 women and their families who endured the brutality of Daesh, and 85% of them were Yazidi, yet the former Conservative government brought a grand total of three Yazidi women into Canada.

Can the member opposite, given his new-found love for supporting refugees, please explain to this House why the former Conservative government was able to bring over only three Yazidi refugees, whereas this government has brought over 1,000?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is just about enough to make someone throw up, that the government is now trying to pretend that somehow it had an interest in Yazidi women. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in the House. If it was not for the member for Calgary Nose Hill doing the work that she has done on this issue, bringing the issue to the House time and time again, those members would have nothing to do with the Yazidis to this day.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a non-partisan spirit, I find myself having difficulty with this debate but I certainly want to make it clear to everyone in the House that the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has nothing newfound in his respect for human rights and his fight for the rights of minorities anywhere in the world to express and practise their religious freedom.

I do find it difficult that Liberal members have decided to get rid of a political problem by voting for a motion that I cannot vote for. I have been in the House for the debate all day and I just cannot bring myself to vote for something which says that we have a history of making mistakes.

The effort here is to further demonize a decision in relation to Omar Khadr. I cannot in good conscience ever vote for something for the purposes of avoiding a propaganda tool for future elections. I cannot compromise myself enough to say that was a mistake. It was the right thing to do. Mr. Khadr, on the evidence that I have looked into, was not even a soldier, certainly not a terrorist, and may not have committed any offence. The reality is the courts have told us that several different governments in this country violated his rights.

I ask my hon. friend from Cypress Hills—Grasslands to forgive me in that I cannot be part of a 2019 Conservative election ploy, but I respect him from the bottom of my heart.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member can take her position on that. She has her own political things she needs to do with this motion.

The reality is that when a group is targeted because of their religion or a group is targeted because of their ethnic identity, the least a responsible government could do is to consider that and whether it is going to allow them to have some sort of status within a refugee program.

The Prime Minister made it clear in October 2015 that he thought that was disgusting. I actually think it is disgusting if one is not going to consider that when people are targeted specifically because of the identity issues that they have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member across the way can understand why many of us on this side of the House get a bit aggravated when we listen to members such as he.

For example, he said the government does not care about Yazidi women, when this regime has brought in 1,000-plus compared to a handful by the previous regime. Compare millions of dollars that were cut during the Harper days to our reinstatement of badly needed resources. We have seen more progressive legislation coming from this side of the House compared to the regressive legislation from the Harper era. I am sure the member can understand and appreciate why we get frustrated at times.

It seems to me the Conservatives want to talk a tough line. However, when it comes time to deliver, we have seen this government time and time again deliver for Canadians in many different areas and especially in this area.

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

That is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary can try to rewrite history all he wants and that is fine but anyone who is familiar with the debates in here particularly around the Yazidis would know that the initiative and the impetus for any care that was shown to that community came from this side of the House, particularly from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. If she had not been as stubborn as she was and if she had not kept coming back to this, the government would have let none of them in here. The Liberals could not have cared less until they were forced into accepting, first of all, that a genocide had taken place, and second, that that community needed to be brought here.

I would suggest to the member opposite that maybe his government should take a look at some of the other communities over there, like the Christian communities, which were wiped out on the Nineveh Plains, and give them some special consideration as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to rise in the House today for this debate. I will begin by fully endorsing the sentiment expressed by Nadia Murad, the Yazidi Nobel laureate quoted in the opposition motion. Nadia and many others like her were subjected to unspeakable brutality at the hands of Daesh. We all want her tormentors to be brought to justice. We all want their actions brought to light. We all want them to face the consequences of their crimes.

While most members of Daesh were not Canadian, some of them were. They are rightly our focus today. Bringing them to justice involves taking a clear-eyed, fact-based look at the issue of terrorist travellers.

There are approximately 190 people with a connection to Canada who have gone to join a terrorist group somewhere in the world and they remain outside of our borders. According to the “2017 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”, about 60 others have returned to Canada. That number has not changed much since 2015. Again, some of these people were involved with Daesh, while others were part of other terrorist groups.

If we compare Canada with many of our allies, the number is quite small. However, even one person can do a lot of damage, so it is a potential threat we must take very seriously.

I want to underline that taking it seriously involves being serious about it. Let us not pretend, for example, that prosecuting the activities committed in a war zone on the other side of the world is a simple thing. This is not CSI: Mosul. It is a significant challenge to get accurate and credible knowledge about who was in Iraq and Syria and what they did. There is a reason, for example, that even though our intelligence agencies were aware of some 60 people who had returned to Canada from terrorist involvement overseas, none of them were charged under the Harper government.

Today, four returnees have been charged. Two have been convicted and two cases remain before the courts.

Whenever possible, if information pertaining to criminal activity exists, and if that information can be expected to withstand the rigours of our criminal justice system, charges are laid. Investigating, building a case, conducting interviews and following leads take time and effort, and our law enforcement agencies are doing that work. In the meantime, our security agencies, including CSIS, the RCMP and many others, work to identify, investigate and respond to threats.

When an extremist returns, the person is carefully monitored by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies within the bounds of the law. Those agencies work around the clock all year, including with international partners. They keep extremely close tabs on returning extremists.

Surveillance is not the only tool they can use. They may also use, for example, peace bonds, public listings, the no-fly list and the revocation of passports.

The RCMP's National Security Joint Operations Centre works with all implicated departments and agencies to respond to high-risk travellers. The women and men of our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies are trained professionals and they do a remarkable job of keeping us safe.

At the same time, I am proud that our government is focusing on counter-radicalization. I was particularly concerned about radicalization locally when I witnessed a protest in my community at the Alexander the Great Parkette that seemed to be directing hate toward specific communities. This happened within the past couple of months. I believe that counter-radicalization is important for the continued safety and security of our communities across Canada.

The Conservatives like to make fun of counter-radicalization, but the fact is, as University of Waterloo expert Dr. Lorne Dawson has said, “All the G20 nations are convinced of the need to move into prevention programming because, in the long term, it's our best bet. You can't arrest your way out of this problem. It's too big and pervasive around the world.”

Unfortunately, Canada has a lot of catching up to do. According to Dr. Dawson, “The previous Conservative government had little or no interest in following up on this”. The new Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence helps communities build resilience against all forms of extremism, whether it is inspired by Daesh, white supremacism or any other ideology.

Just as an aside, when the Conservatives talk about fighting terrorism with poetry, they are referring to a program called Project Someone run out of Concordia University in Montreal. This program uses strategies, including the arts, to prevent youth from turning down the path of extremism. This program received $170,000 in funding from the Harper government.

To recap, we need police and prosecutors to bring charges whenever they can find the evidence to do so. We need our security and intelligence agencies, in keeping with their legal authorities, to monitor individuals who may pose a threat. We need to support prevention programs that help keep young Canadians from becoming radicalized in the first place. Finally, we need to support the survivors of extremism.

I am proud of the work our government has done to support and welcome refugees to our country. Under this government, over 40,000 Syrian refugees have arrived in Canada since November 4, 2015. Our government's commitment to bring 1,000 Yazidi women and girls and their families is well under way, something we have talked about today in this place.

This weekend, I attended an event in East York, which brought together members of local sponsorship groups which welcomed people seeking refuge to our country. I also met with one of the people they helped to welcome. It was beautiful to see how much we could help one another and learn from each other. My office worked with many of these private sponsorship groups, and it has been one of the most touching and important things we have done as a way to help and support our community.

A week and a half ago, I attended an event at the Metropolitan Community Church in my community, where we talked about the work this church is doing to support LGBTQ2 refugees coming to our country. It works with the Rainbow Railroad. It was an inspiring moment to talk about the work it is doing to help all these people who are seeking refuge in our country. It highlights our role as a country and what our government has taken on to help people who are escaping dangerous situations around the world.

Our government is working with community partners to ensure that when people come to our country from dangerous situations as refugees, they get the specialized support and treatment they need, including mental health services provided through the refugees health care program that had been cut by the Harper government. I am very glad we have been able to offer them safe haven, and I am so proud to be able to welcome them to our country.

Even though this motion contains some parts I do not agree with, I will vote for it as an act of solidarity with Nadia Murad, who is quoted in the preamble, and with all the Yazidi women and girls who have suffered at the hands of Daesh. I am sure, like most refugees, they will end up giving Canada more than Canada would ever hope to give them. That is certainly what we have seen in my community when we have welcomed refugees and have seen their commitment to make our country a better place. Certainly, we are better as a community for having welcomed them. I am happy we are giving them that support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any parliamentarian, or for that matter any human being, could fail to be moved by the struggle and heroism of now Nobel laureate Nadia Murad. Unfortunately, the text of this motion does not stick to the points made by Nadia Murad, and that is the problem I have with the motion. No one would say that those who have committed crimes where there is evidence and we know something has occurred should not be brought to justice.

However, how can the Liberals vote for paragraph (a), “refrain from repeating the past mistakes of paying terrorists with taxpayers' dollars”? That is clearly a reference to the Omar Khadr case, and it is clearly quite wrong that it was a past mistake. Perhaps there are other examples which are being referred to as “past mistakes” in this language which seems to have come from the belly of the Rebel Media.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I loved it when I read that clause myself. When the member references Omar Khadr and his settlement, I would hope that we as a government have learned from the mistakes of past governments and what led up to the Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The reason the settlement had to be paid was the past mistakes that violated a person's rights. In two of its decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada noted these violations, though I cannot remember the exact years of the decisions. We should not repeat those mistakes. We need to respect everyone's rights. Whether we like who they are or not, everyone's rights are charter rights that we must respect.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned peace bonds in her speech, but Bill C-59 has rendered peace bonds nearly useless. The threshold now is that a peace bond would be “necessary” to stop a terror attack, rather than one that is “likely”. That is about the same as the proof necessary to lay a charge. Why is the Liberal government weakening these tools?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of serving on the committee that reviewed this legislation and one of the most important issues that people were concerned about was the work that happened in the last years of the previous government, when it put together legislation that did not take into account the need to respect people's rights. In fact, we have learned time and time again that when legislation is drafted that does not have the proper balance in taking into account people's rights, it becomes unenforceable. Those things cannot be applied properly and do not respect the rights that we enjoy and respect in our country. That is what makes our country the safe place of refuge that people come to, because we respect charter and civil rights. That is something I treasure and I make no excuses for supporting that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way talks very passionately about respecting people's rights and how the Supreme Court decision has reinforced the rights of people. I am wondering how she feels about individuals who have had their charter rights with regard to conscience, belief and thought violated by the horrible attestation in the Canada summer jobs program that her government has insisted people meet in order to receive government funding. How about their rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have wandered a little off topic when we talk about people's charter rights and what the Supreme Court of Canada has said.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You're the one who brought it up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand strongly by it. By the way, as a Jewish Canadian, as someone who has seen what happens in other countries, if we want to talk about extremism, when people speak about extremism, we saw what happened with people having to escape Nazi Germany when people's rights were not respected. When I talk about it, that is at the core of why I believe so strongly in the need to respect the rights of all people, as our charter does, and I will stand by that. I will not be distracted by other arguments bringing us to side discussions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Justice; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this late afternoon to speak on this opposition day motion with many thoughts brewing.

The best way for me to think about what I wanted to say for these next eight or nine minutes was to first think about my riding. I am blessed to have a very vibrant, diverse Christian community from the Middle East, from the Chaldean community and the Assyrian community. They have been coming to Canada for the last 15 to 20 years. They are very hard-working and entrepreneurial. I go to the Church of the Good Shepherd every three or four weeks. I go to mass with parishioners there. I addressed the parishioners last Sunday morning at the nine o'clock mass. I spoke about the values that I was raised with, of hard work, tolerance, inclusivity and caring for family. Those are the same values this community has.

The one thing I had to say to them was that I had to admit I could never know what they went through in Iraq and in other places in the Middle East, or why they had to leave. For a millennia, the Christian community in the Middle East was vibrant, numbered very populous, and now things have changed. It is partially due to Daesh or ISIS. Many have resettled here in Canada, including in Windsor and London, my area of Vaughan, and in the area of the member for Humber River—Black Creek. In Michigan, I think they number almost 400,000 now. They have also gone to San Diego and to Australia. People have had to leave the land that they inhabited for a long time.

Thankfully, many have remained in Iraq, in the areas of the Nineveh Plains, as it is referred to. I salute them. I saluted them last Sunday at mass, with the bishop who I am very good friends with.

I read this opposition day motion. Many in the House know that I am not one to be overtly partisan. I do not like rhetoric; I like substance. I did not come into politics for the future of my two daughters to engage in rhetoric. I do not want them seeing daddy being rhetorical. I want them to see me on TV providing substantive answers to the issues at hand, making sure that their and all other children's futures are bright. I will leave it at that tangent there.

I am blessed in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge to have a very buoyant, dynamic Christian community from the Middle East, the Chaldean and Assyrian community. I like to see them at least once or twice a month. Unfortunately, many of them are refugees at this point. They have relatives who are refugees in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Many are not in UNHCR camps; they are helped by informal networks. Many are being sponsored as refugees here in Canada. I look forward to working with the community.

At this time I would like to send a special shout out to the bishop and parishioners of the Church of the Good Shepherd. I will see them in November, and we will celebrate Christmas thereafter.

When I read this motion, which I support, I thought about the time I lived in New York City from 1996 or 1997 until 2002. I think about a terrorist attack that occurred in front of my eyes. That impacted me forever. It changed the destiny and lives of countless people in that beautiful city I was blessed to call home.

I think about a beautiful day when I was travelling downtown. I worked on Wall Street for a number of years. I was going to a training session in front of the World Trade Center towers. It was a beautiful September, still summer, day. I think about the events that transpired, the planes hitting the two buildings, the buildings coming down, me watching the buildings coming down right before me, and being buried in the dust. I thought I would die, simply because I did not know which direction the buildings would fall. Afterwards, I thought about the feelings I had.

I read this opposition day motion, and there is stuff in it that I agree with. For the Conservatives, this is politics. For me, this is serious business. I lived through it. I think about the emotions I had afterwards, of vengeance, of needing to get this or that person, needing to go after and find the perpetrators. Thankfully, President Obama did.

At the same time, we must always remember that we are a country of laws. We always need to keep that in mind. However, these folks leave our wonderful and blessed country of Canada, with all the values that we have, the freedoms we enjoy, and with that, the responsibilities we hold. We enjoy many freedoms, and I do not think there is a country in the world that people want to live in more than Canada at this moment in history. I do not think there is a country in the world that demonstrates its values to the extent that we do in Canada at this moment in history. However, we must remember that we are a country of laws, responsibilities and freedoms. Therefore, when these individuals go abroad and do what they do, as my brother, a 20-year veteran and sergeant in one of the police forces in Canada, reminds me, they must be held to account. He has done that for 20 years of his life. These people must be held to account and they will be held to account. Now, it is not the Code of Hammurabi, if we want to go back in history, but those are the laws we are based on.

The debate today is an important one, and I have no desire to politicize it, because I have experienced it. I have seen it, and it is a very serious issue. When I read what Nadia has written, I do not think any of us will ever know the pain and suffering that she and all the Yazidis went through. I do not think I will ever know what the parishioners at the Church of the Good Shepherd and their relatives went through. However, I do know that we will stand beside them. We will fight for them in the international courts. We will ensure that the refugees who have been sponsored to come to Canada have that opportunity. We will ensure that the funding that is required in that area, in the Nineveh Plains that I spoke about, gets there. However, we will also make sure that those folks blessed enough to either be born in this country as Canadian or who came to this country are held accountable.

I like the word “accountable”. It is what I was raised as. One needs to be accountable for one's actions. I am not going to use unfavourable language in this chamber that I am privileged to stand in, but they will be held accountable. We know that under this government, four individuals have been tried for terrorism-related offences since they returned to Canada. We know that two of them were successfully convicted and two cases remain before the courts. We know that the Conservatives in the prior 10 years, like it or not but it is a fact, introduced a lot of austerity measures so they could, with some accounting gimmicks, supposedly balance the books. We know that a lot of money was cut, for example, from the CRA, Statistics Canada and so forth. We also know that, unfortunately, from 2011 to 2015 there were cuts of approximately $1 billion made to a number of agencies and security services that we depend on. That was unfortunate.

I understand that times were tough, and Conservatives' times are usually tough times for Canadians. I get that, but our government is judicious, we are diligent, and we will hold these perpetrators to account. When they come back, there will be no free bus passes, there will be no free lunch, not in the world I was raised in, and these folks will be held to account and will be sent to jail.

I hope that the people who have suffered will have their day in court, that all the perpetrators will be held responsible, whether here, in The Hague, in Iraq, or whichever country, because that is the rule of law. We always must remember that this country is based on the rule of law.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the personal notes my hon. colleague puts in his speech and his experience. What has that taught him about the right to address these kinds of serious security issues in our country?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, looking back at my time and experience with 9/11 and with the Chaldean and Syrian community in my riding, these people want justice. They want the people who have afflicted damage on their families and their property held to account. However, I would always preface it that in Canada we have rules of law and we are a country of laws. When Canadians go abroad and commit offences, terrorists or not, they should be held accountable. When they commit terrorist offences, like the ones that have been described by Nadia, to be honest, I do not have much pity for them at all.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about accountability and fairness for people who were perpetrators, I think those were the words he used. I am thinking of the illegal migrants who have been coming across our borders and breaking our laws by entering illegally. He is very confident his government will hold those people to account.

He also said that there were no free lunches or free bus passes. My understanding is that is not the case with the illegal migrants who have come across the borders. They are enjoying a free lunch, a free stay, free medicare, free dental and maybe even a free bus pass. Therefore, in light of his government's track record on illegal migrants, what confidence does he have in his government to hold people accountable?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my parents immigrated here in 1959 and 1965, my dad via Australia, my mom via Pier 21, which I had the honour of visiting this past summer on a trip with the finance committee. My grandmother and grandfather brought seven children to this country. We worked hard to integrate. We worked hard to learn the language. My mom, even to this day, only has a grade four education. She raised three boys. One is a police officer, one is a parliamentarian and the other has done quite well also. Those values of hard work are ingrained in me.

Anyone immigrating to our country, the 300,000 or so who do so every year, do so with that belief. I would like to think that all people of the world who wish to come to Canada do so in a regular manner. For anyone else, as the hon. member knows, a system is in place to look at that, assess the situation and ensure the people who come here deserve to be here, because it is the best country in the world.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague's personal anecdotes were very fitting and telling to a very large picture of concern, not only in Canada but around the world, when we talk about terrorism. I was not aware that my colleague had lived through the experience of 9/11. When we look at the past 10 years under the previous administration, and I may have my numbers incorrect, I believe about 60 people who had been involved or who had been considered to be involved were returned to Canada, and only four have been held accountable for that. That is a concern for Canadians.

There is an opportunity here today for us to all work together. How important is it to Canadians that we stand together on issues of national security and work together for the betterment of our country and ultimately for the betterment of those who are in Canada?