Costas Menegakis

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a balanced and responsible plan for refugee resettlement. Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, we do not make policy on a whim. The opposition is shamefully and purposely misleading Canadians. Our government has a balanced and responsible plan for refugee resettlement, and I would urge the hon. member to support all of our measures. It is incredible that any time we bring measures in the House that support the refugee system, the members of the opposition, and the member, vote against them.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has welcomed one out of every ten resettled refugees in the world. That is more than almost any other country in the world.

We are world leaders when it comes to protecting refugees. The Government of Canada is determined to help refugees resettle, become part of Canada and succeed in their new home. Our goal is to help them achieve the best results they can.

[Democratic Reform, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the system of governance we have in Canada is clearly very democratic. He knew when he put his name on a ballot to be elected in his riding how we get elected and how governments are formed, whether as a majority or a minority. For the member to now change or twist his perception of whether there is a majority government is just his own personal perception. The fact of the matter is that there is. The fact of the matter is that this Prime Minister and this majority Conservative government respect the will of its members and the will of the members of this House all of the time. That has been clearly demonstrated by the voting record since the 41st Parliament began in May 2011.

[Democratic Reform, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not blame the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his dissatisfaction with the way he was treated in his party when he was with the New Democratic Party. Of course, after having promised his constituents, as he so well said, for over four elections on what his position was on the elimination of the inefficient, inaccurate, and way-overdone long gun registry, he was not allowed to vote his conscience or the will of his constituents. He took a principled position to step outside of the party and run as an independent member, because he did not want to be part of a party system. Actually, much to our surprise, he has joined another party now. However, the term is still young in this 41st Parliament; he still has 18 more months, so he may end up somewhere else at some point.

What I will say is that the sponsor of Bill C-559, the hard-working member and my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, has presented his bill to the House. It has not been debated yet. It has not gone to committee, and we have not heard of any amendments that may be coming up or what those amendments are. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North that his request, the passionate speech he gave about whether people will be able to freely vote on private member's Bill C-559, is somewhat premature at this time.

However, given this opportunity here today, I would like to highlight a couple of points for the hon. member as they relate to the record in this 41st Parliament, which is the first Parliament in which I have the great honour and privilege of serving the great people of my home riding of Richmond Hill. In this 41st Parliament, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and this strong, stable, national majority Conservative government, I am proud to say that backbenchers, members of Parliament, have passed more bills into law than in any other Parliament since 1972, and we are only about 60% into the completion of this term. That is a clear indication of how much we value the input of all members of Parliament.

I should say that, if we looked through the records since this 41st Parliament took office on May 2, 2011, we would find that the Conservative members of Parliament have voted freely a lot more often than any of the other parties. In fact, I believe the New Democratic Party has a 100% rate of whipped voting from its leadership. That is not the case in private members' legislation on the Conservative side.

In closing, I will say this. I am proud to be a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, which allows its members to voice their opinions through constructive debate before rising in this House to express the vote that the good people in their respective ridings have given them the right to cast.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to this debate today and it is a wonderful attempt, so to speak, by the New Democratic Party to deflect attention from what actually is happening. We all know that the leader of the New Democratic Party travels using taxpayer funds, for example, to Washington to lobby against Canada. Perhaps I will provide a little reminder to the NDP members that when they and their leader travel outside the country, they should be travelling in support of Canada, for which Canadians elected them to the House.

However, more importantly—and more poignantly, I would like to say—let me point this out. Parliament ordered the leader of the New Democratic Party to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee to respond to questions about the misuse of funds by the New Democratic Party to set up satellite offices in regions of the country where there is no elected member of Parliament from the New Democratic Party. This is the party that has been called upon to appear before the PROC committee, and the motion today is simply a partisan attempt to deflect attention from the fact that the NDP members have to respond to these actions.

I ask the member the following question. How does she feel about her leader being called in front of the PROC committee to respond to the misappropriation of taxpayer dollars?

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend we saw first-hand how the leader of the Liberal Party chooses to speak to Canadians.

At a charity event on Saturday evening, the Liberal leader said to the crowd, and I quote: “I'm going to tell you, there's no experience like stepping into this ring and measuring yourself.... your name, your fortune, your intelligence, your beauty—none of that [then he dropped the f-bomb to the people attending] matters”.

This type of language is extremely unbecoming of a young man who one day wishes to be prime minister. It is too bad that his decision to speak candidly resulted in profanity instead of praise for the event organizers who raise money for cancer research. We just cannot make this stuff up.

I cannot say this enough: the Liberal leader clearly lacks the judgment, the decorum, and the maturity to be prime minister of this country.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our party has demonstrated that we vote our conscience. We can point to many times when we have done that in the House. We can point to very few times when that has happened with the NDP over there.

I am very surprised that the hon. member does not see the partisanship involved in this. This is all it is. It is politics by the NDP. The NDP members are using an apology made in the House to try to prolong and continue to filibuster one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been put before the House, Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We know what that is about, and Canadians know what that is about. We look forward to getting on with the job and getting it done.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that it is very disappointing that we are going through this process at this time, but for reasons somewhat different from those the hon. member just gave.

I do not know why the hon. member would have difficulty explaining it to her constituents. It is simple. If we want to talk about clearing the air, as the former speaker said, the member has cleared the air. He made one statement and he corrected it. I have a lot of difficulty understanding why the hon. member cannot tell her constituents that the member made a mistake and got up and apologized. It is as simple as that. It is not rocket science. It is very easy. He made a comment that he could not substantiate. He got up and he apologized. He said, “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House”.

I believe the constituents in her riding would understand that. It is human to make a mistake and it is human to stand up and say “I'm sorry”.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the apology to the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 25 this year. This is what he said:

I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made. It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House, for which I have the greatest amount of respect.

I would submit to my friend opposite that he is taking an ultra-partisan approach on this specific issue, tainting the reputation of a man who had the courage to stand up in this House and deliver this apology. Not once has he stood up to say that he and members of his party misquote things.

I will give an ongoing example of this. We have a bill before the House. It is called the fair elections act. New Democrats changed the name of the bill. That is not the bill being debated in the House. It is the fair elections act. They refer to it as the unfair elections act. I do not know what they are referring to. The name of the bill is fair elections. There is partisanship on display, big time, yet again.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the opposition is drawing a line in the sand. It does not want to see the light for what it is.

The member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville made a mistake. He stood up in the House and he apologized. He apologized to Canadians. He apologized to all members of the House.

At this point, to behave in the manner that the NDP has decided to behave on this issue is, without being disrespectful, quite shameful.