Costas Menegakis

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, March 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is the product of a report that came out after extensive study done by the citizenship and immigration committee in the House. We have heard extensive debate in this House, as has been heard in the Senate. To continue to hear regurgitated speeches that are not only repetitive but ad nauseam repeating of the same points over and over, does not add to the quality of the debate as the Liberal member was so eloquently trying to explain.

However, I want to ask the minister this question.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 10th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, committee members, as always, are masters of their own proceedings, and we look forward to hearing testimony from all witnesses appearing before the committee.

Canada is proud to be one of the fairest and most generous countries in the world. This year alone, we are planning to welcome about 280,000 newcomers to our country. We welcome one-tenth of the world's refugees worldwide. We look forward to welcoming newcomers who can contribute to our economy.

It is a little rich hearing that question from the member over there. He has voted against every initiative that would provide assistance to newcomers to help them integrate into our country.

[Rise in anti-Semitism, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her comments and the point that she has made.

We do not have to look back decades to see anti-Semitism, its effects, and the fact that it existed. As the member said and as we have heard many times this evening, it very much still exists. I will give a live example of a very appalling, disgraceful, despicable, racist hatred movement right here in our own country that transpires and has transpired over the last couple of years in the summer in our provincial capital at Queen's Park in Toronto.

Quds Day is something that was initiated by the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. Its purpose is to oppose Zionism. It calls for the elimination of the State of Israel.

This is what happens. The Liberal provincial government in Ontario has given permission to the organizers to organize this rally for Quds Day in the middle of the summer right in Toronto. We have seen unbelievable hatred and anti-Semitic activities transpire at these events, yet the provincial government is not responding to the call of the people, particularly the Jewish community but also the greater community at large, to stop providing the permit that allows these people to demonstrate in the way they have been.

A quick Google search produces images of some of the signs to be seen at this event right in the heart of Toronto. I will read off some of the signs that were held by the demonstrators there, some of who are children, I would say to my hon. friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands and to all of the members who are here this evening.

One of them says, “Israel, your days are numbered”. Others say, “For world peace, Israel must be destroyed”, “Israel is a terrorist regime”, and “Zionism is terrorism”. As if those are not appalling enough, one states, “Israel is a disease. We are the cure”. These are signs that were held by Canadians in the heart of Toronto in July or the end of June 2014. It was permitted to happen.

It is incumbent upon all of us—as citizens, as members of Parliament, as community leaders, as business people—to speak out so that these types of things do not happen in our community, because children see these acts and learn the wrong things from them.

[Rise in anti-Semitism, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, before I begin the few words I would like to say today, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this very important issue. It is crucial that we continue to educate current and future generations, as we have heard many times this evening, about the poisonous effects of anti-Semitic and xenophobic hate. We must also continue to research and teach about the Holocaust, as well as the prevention of genocide.

These are more than beliefs or convictions. They are, indeed, moral obligations. In fact, the release of the Anti-Defamation League's largest ever worldwide survey on anti-Semitic attitudes in 2013 shows us exactly why we must continue to speak out. More than 53,000 people in more than 100 countries were surveyed, and the results were alarming. Most significant is the fact that 35% of those surveyed had never heard of the Holocaust and, of those who had, roughly one-third said it was a myth or greatly exaggerated.

Canada is deeply committed to the promotion of Holocaust commemoration, research, and education around the world. It is through this commitment that we will guard against future atrocities. With each passing year, our commitment has remained and must continue to remain steadfast. As an expression of this commitment, the Government of Canada has proudly partnered with Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Israel, and other organizations on a great number of educational and commemorative initiatives in recent year.

I had the opportunity to travel to Israel in 2013 in a delegation with members of Parliament from all parties and in 2014 with the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On both of these trips, I visited Yad Vashem and was deeply moved by what I saw and learned at this poignant museum. Jews and non-Jews around the world are able to travel to Israel and understand the massacre that was the Holocaust in this museum in the modern Jewish homeland. If we are human, we cannot help but be moved by what we see when we walk through that museum.

In addition, in November, 2010, the second annual conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism took place right here in our nation's capital, Ottawa. It brought together parliamentarians and experts from around the world to lead the fight against global anti-Semitism and developed what is known as the Ottawa protocol. Canada took the extra step of signing the protocol in the fall of 2011 to further underscore its commitment and to encourage other states to do so.

Canada has a proud history of promoting human rights and combatting hate and discrimination. The government supports a coordinated global effort against hatred and anti-Semitism, and the Ottawa protocol marks an important step in such an effort.

Our country's profound commitment to Holocaust remembrance and education was only made stronger when Canada took on the responsibility of chairing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2013-14, an intergovernmental body comprising 31 member states to promote Holocaust education, remembrance, and research. In our chair year, we hosted a major international conference on Holocaust remembrance and education in Toronto. It was among many other events and initiatives designed to promote Holocaust education and research and to confront and combat the global resurgence of anti-Semitism.

At the Toronto conference, we were also proud to obtain consensus on a working definition of Holocaust denial and distortion. This placed the IHRA in a better position to effectively target, monitor, and address the most extreme form of anti-Semitism on a global scale.

Canada's chairmanship of the IHRA came to a close to last year, when we handed over the chairmanship to the United Kingdom. However, our resolute dedication to this organization and to international Holocaust education, research, and commemoration continues.

In closing, we have an ongoing responsibility to resist all efforts to accept anti-Semitism as something normal or understandable, because once it is accepted as such by public opinion, it may lead to unimaginable consequences.

[Taxation, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is the government of lower taxes. That is why we introduced the tax-free savings account, just like we promised. It is a way for Canadians to save for retirement, their kids' education, and the down payment on a house. In fact, today we are proud that nearly 11 million Canadians of all ages and income levels have opened accounts allowing them to save tax free.

According to Manulife Financial, the tax-free savings account is the favourite investment choice for Canadians. Nearly half of TFSA account holders earn less than $42,000 a year, and in 2013, 75% of all TFSA account holders earned less than $70,000.

However, the Liberals and the NDP will raise taxes and reverse our benefits. The facts are clear. Only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep taxes low for Canadian families.

[National Anthem Act, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-624, an act to amend the National Anthem Act with respect to gender, which seeks to amend the act to replace the words “thy sons” with the words “of us” in the English version of the national anthem. The intent of this change is to make our national anthem gender neutral. The verse would then read “True patriot love in all of us command” rather than “True patriot love in all thy sons”. O Canada is not a direct translation. Therefore, the lyrics of the French national anthem would not be affected by the proposed bill and would remain the same.

In addition to O Canada, Canada also has a royal anthem, God Save the Queen, that is performed in the presence of members the royal family and as part of the salute accorded to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors at ceremonies and events across our country.

Canada has a rich history of other patriotic songs as well, such as the Ode to Newfoundland and The Maple Leaf Forever, that preserve our heritage and history in song.

National symbols and anthems are very important aspects of a country. They are very important to national identity. They represent the beliefs and values of citizens and tell the story of a nation, its people, environment, history and traditions. They can be used to instill pride and unity in a nation's population, and this is particularly true of our national anthem.

Every country has its own set of symbols that establishes its identity and sets it apart from other countries around the world. Our symbols are as diverse as Canada's history and include the coat of arms, our motto, the national flag of Canada, our official colours, the maple tree, the beaver, the national horse of Canada, our national sports, the tartan and, of course, our national anthem. Together, these symbols help explain what it means to be Canadian and express our national identity. For Canadians, these symbols provide connections across space and time, and are a source of unity and pride.

As we head toward 2017, our government will focus on increasing Canadians' awareness and fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of our country's history, symbols and institutions as we celebrate our 150th anniversary.

The symbols of Canada can heighten not only our awareness of our country, but also our sense of celebration in being Canadian. Our national anthem represents a legacy that has been passed down from our predecessors. It is a source of national pride. A 2012 survey found that 78% of Canadians believed our national anthem to be a great source of pride. Another poll conducted in the same year found that 74% of Canadians believed that our national anthem best reflected what Canada really was.

Our government is committed to promoting and protecting our symbols and institutions. These pillars of national cohesion are key in building awareness and appreciation of shared experiences and pride. National symbols represent the country and its people. The lyrics of the national anthem have remained untouched since it was adopted as the official national anthem in 1980.

Although many bills have been tabled seeking to modify the national anthem to make it gender neutral, none of the bills was successful.

In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, our government committed to looking at changing the lyrics for gender neutrality. However, following this speech, the public strongly expressed its opposition to changing the anthem and the government opted not to modify it. Further research to seek Canadians' opinion on this subject was conducted and there was a clear indication that Canadians loved their anthem and wished to see it kept as it is. A 2013 study found that 65% of Canadians opposed the change. Only 25% supported the change and 10% had no opinion on the issue.

After that clear message, how can we possibly support the bill? Canadians across our country, men and women alike, are against the change and have voiced that. Supporting this bill would be telling them loudly and clearly that what the majority of Canadians want does not matter and that their opinions do not matter to the government.

As mentioned, our symbols are a celebration of who we are as a people. They are designed to unite a population that possesses similar views, outlooks and goals. If our anthem is a celebration of who we are as a people and represents the beliefs and values of citizens, how can we change it without the consent of those very same citizens? It is the opinion of Canadians across our country that counts. No government can go against the will of its people.

I believe gender equality to be a very important issue. Our government has come a long way in ensuring that the many contributions and achievements of women are recognized and that their role in society is highlighted. This is accomplished through the designation of special days such as International Women's Day and Women's History, by presenting awards, by highlighting the significant role women continue to play in the building of our country during commemorations and celebrations, and by making specific investments through Canada's economic action plan.

For example, since 2007, our government has provided over $146 million in funding through the Status of Women Canada's women program, which aims to achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada.

There is certainly work left to be done to ensure that gender equality in all aspects of Canadian life is realized. It is incumbent upon all of us to continue to work toward that key objective. However, given that Canadians oppose changing our national anthem, our government will not support this bill. Our government will continue to recognize women in the various tangible ways it has been doing and will remain committed, with conviction, to protecting and preserving our national symbols.

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that because of privacy laws, I cannot speak to the specifics of this particular case.

I will state this. Canada has one of the most fair and generous immigration systems in the world. With that said, we must ensure that we continue to welcome newcomers while respecting Canadian taxpayers at all times.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on one hand, we have the Liberal Party saying that it supports the legislation. On the other hand, its members get up and complain about us bringing in the legislation.

The member mentioned oversight. He talked about the NDP. However, he said nothing about the 15 minutes the NDP members chewed up by slow voting. That took time away from people to have the opportunity to stand in the House to speak about the bill. The irony of that is comical to say at best.

However, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a robust Canadian model that has provided expert oversight of CSIS for decades. Threat disruption powers will be reported on and tabled in Parliament and SIRC will continue to have unfettered access to all information of CSIS. CSIS remains subject to judicial authority and under no circumstances can CSIS pervert the course of justice, inflict bodily harm, or violate a person's sexual integrity.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is perplexing to hear NDP members so ideologically stuck in this partisan view all the time when we bring forward legislation that is meaningful legislation for Canadians. I know the member is a member for Parliament from Quebec. Quebeckers overwhelmingly support this legislation.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadist terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society. I need not remind the member of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was run over simply because he was wearing the uniform in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

With respect to the specific question on threat disruption, an example of threat disruption could be as simple as speaking to the family of a radicalized individual to dissuade him or her from a dangerous path or by impersonating and discrediting a terror traveller facilitator online.

A number of things can be done that we as Canadians have a responsibility to bring to the attention of authorities, including CSIS. Let us break down these silos, these barriers between departments so we can stop these threats from threatening Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech today, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hard-working, esteemed member representing the great riding of Medicine Hat.

Today I rise to speak to the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which I am proud to say was announced in my home town, the great town of Richmond Hill. I will be speaking specifically to those provisions regarding the passenger protect program and how we are working to guard our aviation industry from terrorist attacks.

From its beginnings in the 1900s, flight has always been connected to risk. In the early days, poor navigational devices meant that pilots had to fly close enough to the earth to navigate, using roads and railways during the day and relying on bonfires lit in fields on poorly lit days when visibility was bad or, indeed, at night. It is not surprising that fatal accidents were common.

Today, thanks to advances in navigation, aerodynamics, aircraft design, and digital technology, our aviation system is one of the safest ways to travel, and it is a method of travel that Canadians have embraced, particularly given our vast geographic size. However, we face a rapidly changing threat landscape that can and has had an impact on aviation security.

As we know, terrorists have made a point of targeting airplanes because these attacks offer a large number of potential victims, have a high economic impact, and lead to widespread publicity to feed their propaganda machines. From hijackings to bombings, we have seen terrorist groups target the aviation system throughout the past many decades. The incidents and dates are clearly imprinted on our minds. I remind the House of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, the attacks that destroyed four planes and killed thousands of people on September 11, 2001; and of course, there were the failed attempts, such as the shoe bomber on a flight headed to Miami in December 2001, the underwear bomber on a flight headed to Detroit in December 2009, and the printer cartridges rigged with explosives originating in Yemen in 2010.

Each of these attacks and near misses has meant another shift in airline security. Many of these are physical security measures: restrictions on the amount of liquids brought onboard, the scanning of all baggage, removing shoes to go through security, requirements to undergo physical searches or body scans as requested by airport security agents. Other measures include the scanning of passports and other travel documents to confirm citizenship and identification and the provision of basic information to transportation security agencies when booking flights that travel through United States airspace

Like many of its allies, Canada has a program in place to protect air travellers by, for instance, denying boarding to specified individuals who pose a threat to aviation security. That is the passenger protect program, to which I will return in a moment.

These measures were put in place with one clear purpose: to keep our aviation system safe. That means guarding against immediate threats to airplanes and protecting the lives of airline crew and passengers, not to mention citizens who may find themselves in the pathway of a compromised airplane, such as we saw on that fateful day, 9/11. Today, however, terrorist incidents around the world are forcing us to once again re-evaluate our aviation security and look beyond the immediate threat to an airplane.

It is clear that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. That is why our government has put forth these measures that protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

One of the gravest threats to global security is the phenomenon of terrorist travel: individuals who travel by air to regions of unrest and violence to engage in terrorist activities. These individuals do not pose an immediate threat to an airplane. Indeed, they want their flight to be safe and uneventful so that they can reach their destinations.

While these violent extremists are not an immediate threat to an airplane or to passengers when they travel, they do pose a significant danger to those people living in the countries where they undergo their training and terrorist activities and in the countries in which they want to perpetrate their crimes. Moreover, there is a great risk that they will return to their home country to test out their newly acquired skills by plotting and carrying out attacks on innocent civilians.

In order to meet this shifting threat, Canada's passenger protect program itself must evolve. The legislation before us includes measures that would expand and strengthen this program, allowing us to address the threat of terrorist travel.

First and foremost, we would expand the program's mandate so it would focus on two key areas: stopping threats to aviation security and preventing individuals from travelling by air for certain terrorist purposes. These include training, recruiting or conducting terrorist attacks in another location. The full scope of these activities would be aligned with the new Criminal Code offences on terrorist travel that were brought in under the Combating Terrorism Act.

We also propose to strengthen the program's legislative framework. This means clearly defining the authorities of both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport.

We will make it clear in law that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has the authority to identify and list individuals who pose a threat to aviation security as well as those suspected to be travelling for terrorist purposes; determine the appropriate measures in each case, an authority currently held by the Minister of Transport; provide administrative recourse to individuals who are denied boarding under the program; and share the specified persons list, in whole or in part, as needed with foreign states in support of the program's mandate.

The Minister of Transport will have the authority to communicate with air carriers, including sharing information about individuals listed under the program to air carriers flying to, within and from Canada; monitor industry compliance with the program; and regulate civil aviation in general, including overall security of the aviation system.

To support its expanded mandate, the passenger protect program will also include an expanded range of response measures that can be used other than denial of boarding. These could include additional physical screening of specified individuals and coordination with the RCMP in-flight security officers. All actions would be undertaken proportionate to the perceived risk posed by the individual.

We will also put in place a streamlined appeal process. In effect, we will establish clearly defined procedures for appeal of decisions and actions related to the passenger protect program. This means that one Federal Court judge could protect and rely upon classified information in making his or her decision. This is similar to procedures already in place for judicial review of ministerial decisions about listing terrorist entities and denying charitable status to organizations that support terrorists.

As members can see, an enhanced passenger protect program would allow Canada to better address terrorist travel by air. We firmly believe that not only do we have an obligation to our citizens but also to our global allies to do everything we can to prevent individuals from leaving and returning to Canada for terrorist purposes. This is what this legislation is intended to do: to stop terrorists before they can perpetrate terror on innocent civilians in Canada and abroad.

The changes I have itemized would provide firm backing for our approach, and we must act now to put these changes in place. I hope the New Democrats will put aside their opposition to criminalizing this kind of terrorist activity, including terrorist travel, and that the Liberals will put aside their opposition to revoking citizenship from terrorists. I hope all members can come together to support this important legislation. At the end of the day, we all want a safer Canada and we all want to keep Canadians safe.