Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today as we continue debate on the Speech from the Throne.
Given that Her Majesty's loyal opposition hopes that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have received adequate briefings over the past two months to reconsider and recognize some of the promises made during the election campaign that could not or should not be kept, I will resist the temptation to say repeatedly, “We told you so”, and I will offer constructive suggestions on some changes and improvements.
I would like to use my time today to touch on a number of issues referenced in generalities in the throne speech that are priorities in my riding of Thornhill and I am sure in ridings right across the country.
It has been my pleasure over the years to participate in a variety of welcoming events for refugees from Iraq and from Syria, particularly those from oppressed minorities in those two broken states. I have been impressed, I have been inspired, by these newest members of Canadian society as they have embraced humble initial accommodation and have welcomed equally humble employment opportunities as they have begun the sometimes marathon process of learning new languages or waiting to have professional qualifications certified.
Notwithstanding Canada's traditional generosity in welcoming refugees from around the world, the government's rush to achieve targeted Syrian intake numbers has had a number of significant, although to be fair, I believe unintended, consequences. Welcoming refugees is one thing, but resettling them effectively and with care is quite another.
The original Liberal campaign promise during the bidding war in the campaign of 25,000 by year's end was clearly unrealistic. However, in the accelerated process, where almost half of the 10,000-by-January target were privately sponsored refugees, serious problems developed very quickly in the capacity of private sponsors and private sponsorship groups, such as religious organizations and community groups, to settle hundreds of new arrivals a week: finding accommodations, acquiring furniture and clothing, connecting new arrivals with schools and with services.
Privately sponsored refugees are allowed one night in hotels, then they become the responsibility of the sponsor or sponsors. On the other hand, government sponsored refugees have unlimited hotel stays, for weeks and even months, and that is not necessarily better. I am sure members have seen media reports of some government sponsored refugees held in hotels for weeks who have expressed frustration to the point that they have suggested that they would rather go home. I am sure that is only the frustration speaking, but it is something to recognize.
The government, to be fair, recognized the unexpected burden on private sponsors and implemented a pause last week, but of only five days. I have been advised by one of the more experienced private sponsors that they could actually use a pause of at least a month.
This is a non-partisan issue. There is no blame to be cast. There are no recriminations. Canadians can make this humanitarian effort work. However, adjustments must be made to manage the flow to some urban centres. In my riding of Thornhill, for example, available rental accommodation is extremely limited. In York region, we have a waiting list of affordable housing of more than 12,000.
I believe that the government should also reconsider the provision of one-night hotel accommodation to allow private sponsors and social agencies to locate, or give them greater time to locate, appropriate housing.
The second matter I would like to raise today has to do with the commitment in the throne speech “to work with Canada's allies in the fight against terrorism”.
The government is still incredibly vague and incoherent in explaining its fixation on fight fade with regard to the CF-18 component of Operation IMPACT. It defies the wishes of our allies. It defies the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It defies logic. It defies Canadian public opinion. Now is not the time for Canada to step back, to force our allies to take heavier burdens in the fight against Daesh, ISIS.
Canadians have been magnificent in accepting tens of thousands of displaced victims from Syria and Iraq. However, they are the lucky few, in all honesty. That is because in the long run, the most important thing democratic peace-loving nations can deliver to the millions of suffering souls in the Levant is the restoration of peace and stability, allowing the displaced to eventually return to their devastated communities to begin to rebuild their lives in their homeland.
Finally, the government has, I believe, unrealistically optimistic intentions to establish diplomatic relations with some of the most dangerous individuals and groups around the world today. I know that many of the hon. members opposite justify their policy positions with the simple statement “because it's 2016”. Because it is 2016, I would like to suggest that it is time to put aside some of the Liberal Party's dated concepts about diplomacy, about war and peace and peacekeeping, and about the solutions needed to address global challenges today. There is certainly a place for optimism and a place for hope and sunny ways, but certainly not for wishful thinking and simplistic solutions.
When it comes to Iran, it is time for a reality check on the government's plans to ease sanctions, to normalize diplomatic relations, to reopen Canada's embassy in Tehran, to allow the Iranian mission to reopen in Ottawa, and to encourage Canadian businesses to explore business opportunities with the regime in Iran.
I was, frankly, disappointed by the indecent rush by some European nations to take advantage of trade opportunities that the lifting of sanctions against Iran's nuclear adventurism would allow. I am equally disappointed that a minister of Canada's new government would voice the same commercial justification to consider delisting Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism; reopening our Tehran embassy, putting our foreign service professionals at risk in the face of the Iranian regime's selective protection of diplomatic establishments; and attempting to engage with a regime that continues flagrant testing of ballistic missiles and that promises to spend billions of dollars in released sanctions funds to sponsor terrorist groups that are committed to the destruction of Israel.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that our government does not allow sunny ways cockeyed optimism to put Canadians at risk or to put any potential victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism at risk in the months and the years ahead.