Costas Menegakis
Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, last year we lost 5,630 Canadians to the opioid crisis. That is 15 lives lost every day. Emmy Liu, 14 years old, was one of the increasingly alarming number of young Canadians whose lives were stolen by the fentanyl traffickers.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to criminalize anyone who dares to quote from scripture, a religious text, and that is crossing the line, as far as I am concerned and as far as a lot of Canadians are concerned. It is the difference between the state and religion, the state and faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's luxurious travel around the world has racked up a nearly $1-million catering bill. That is enough to feed a family for 55 years. While the Prime Minister eats five-star meals, Canadians are struggling.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill would basically strip away the right of a person to quote from their holy text. It would open the door to criminalizing people for uttering words that they are reading from their holy text.”
“Mr. Speaker, record-high youth unemployment in Canada is a direct result of the Liberal government's reckless immigration policies. By flooding the labour market with temporary foreign workers and residents, the current government has created a wage-suppressing crisis.”
“Now the Liberal government has launched an international campaign to recruit more foreign students to Canada who compete with Ethan and other young Canadians who are struggling to find work. The Liberal government should stop pandering to lobbyists and start putting Canadians first.”
The complete record
Every one of 267 lines we hold for Costas Menegakis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, last year we lost 5,630 Canadians to the opioid crisis. That is 15 lives lost every day. Emmy Liu, 14 years old, was one of the increasingly alarming number of young Canadians whose lives were stolen by the fentanyl traffickers. These criminals who profit from producing and trafficking opioids should face serious consequences. That is why Conservatives introduced Bill C-289 to strengthen penalties for these criminals. Emmy's legacy could be more than a tragedy. After the decade of Liberal rule that ushered in the opioid crisis, will the Liberals stop grandstanding and deliver results by supporting this bill?”
“The Conservatives want to lower food prices by taking the tax off gas and diesel for the rest of the year, to cut red tape and carbon taxes driving up the cost of everything, to end wasteful spending and to replace Liberal excess with results for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's luxurious travel around the world has racked up a nearly $1-million catering bill. That is enough to feed a family for 55 years. While the Prime Minister eats five-star meals, Canadians are struggling. A record 2.2 million Canadians use a food bank every single day, and today, 24,000 children will walk through the doors of a food bank hoping to find something to eat. Canadian families are spending more than 120% of their income on food and rent. Canadians are right to ask why they are paying sky-high taxes to cover the Prime Minister 's luxurious catering budget, while they cannot afford their own groceries. The Prime Minister and his policies are completely out of touch with the reality in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to criminalize anyone who dares to quote from scripture, a religious text, and that is crossing the line, as far as I am concerned and as far as a lot of Canadians are concerned. It is the difference between the state and religion, the state and faith. The more concerning thing is that when we bring these issues to committee, as we have in all other committees, the Liberal members have been tone-deaf. They have basically shot down every single amendment brought forth by members of the opposition. Can the member tell me how she feels about her participation when she voices an opinion of her constituents and recommends very reasonable amendments that get shot down time after time by this manufactured majority government on the other side?”
“Madam Speaker, the bill would basically strip away the right of a person to quote from their holy text. It would open the door to criminalizing people for uttering words that they are reading from their holy text. I wonder if the member can share with us why the Liberal government did not consult with faith communities across the country to see what the impact would be of taking away these statutory rules that have been in place for so long now, that protect people and allow people to have freedom of speech and freedom of faith. There is a difference between state and faith. I wonder if the member could comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer data indicates that, if enacted, this bill would produce barely 1% of the homes that are needed on an annual basis. How can a member justify spending billions of dollars on a massive Crown corporation when it would have such negligible impact on the housing crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Will the Bloc be supporting this bill? If so, how can it justify supporting a bill that would not deliver tangible results for Canadians or real support for the forestry industry? Can the member outline the position his party is taking in terms of whether it will be supporting the bill?”
“Now the Liberal government has launched an international campaign to recruit more foreign students to Canada who compete with Ethan and other young Canadians who are struggling to find work. The Liberal government should stop pandering to lobbyists and start putting Canadians first. Conservatives would replace the temporary foreign worker program with one that would prioritize Canadian youth and Canadian workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, record-high youth unemployment in Canada is a direct result of the Liberal government's reckless immigration policies. By flooding the labour market with temporary foreign workers and residents, the current government has created a wage-suppressing crisis. Instead of protecting opportunities for young Canadians, these policies have locked our youth out of the workforce, fuelling a devastating job crisis. Ethan Miranda is a bright young man who did everything he was supposed to do. He studied hard, earned excellent grades and was accepted in one of Canada's top universities in a highly competitive program. He graduated with honours and expected to find employment in his field. After 500 applications, he was forced to accept a job just barely above minimum wage.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to talk about these fancy big things. It is a complete disconnect from the reality we see. Food banks have 2.2 million people visiting them every month. In Richmond Hill, a municipality that the hon. member and I have the huge honour of sharing the responsibility of representing in this House, the Richmond Hill Community Food Bank has record numbers of visitors. I wonder if the member can tell us what he is hearing in the community about the fact that Canada is not number one, not number two and not number three, but in fact the very last of all G7 countries in terms of food affordability.”
“What does he have to say to those hard-working Canadians, those families and those children who cannot afford to put food on the table today?”
“Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the rhetoric in that speech and the pat on the back that the member is expecting, there is a disconnect between what he said and what we are seeing on the ground. As a matter of fact, in communities across the country today, Canadians are struggling to afford food to put on the table. Young people cannot find a job. Housing is completely out of reach for everyone. Does the member know that schools are not open at dinnertime? Food Banks Canada has reported that 2.2 million people are visiting food banks every month, one-third of whom are children. While the member wants a pat on the back, 24,000 children today are going to walk into a food bank, hoping to find something on the shelf to eat because they are hungry.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has the dubious record now of having the worst food affordability amongst all G7 countries. In our communities, we see young people struggling to find a job, and people who cannot afford to buy a home. We see a tremendous backlog in the health care system. We also see the Liberals stand up and tout their credentials on the economy. Does the member opposite think that it is good public policy to bring in an omnibus bill like this and not allow for enough debate to happen in the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal asylum system is a dumpster fire. The minister told Canadians the government stopped paying for asylum seekers' accommodations, but it is now simply bankrolling municipalities to do that for it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that nearly 74,000 failed asylum claimants are also still receiving luxury health benefits. After a year, the Prime Minister 's immigration system looks like the anniversary edition of the last 10. Will the Prime Minister stand up, admit that his Justin Trudeau-inspired immigration policies have failed and finally end the luxury health benefits for failed asylum claimants?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich for the Liberal government to be talking down a very important motion like the one we are putting through today, which would, of course, eliminate all taxes on fuel and all taxes on gas for the entire year, especially given the fact that the government has created the highest housing costs in the history of the country. The government has the highest fuel and gas prices that we have ever seen in the country. The government has created the worst food affordability record of all the G7 countries. We have completed two weeks in our constituencies and met with residents in our ridings. I wonder if the member could share whether the residents in his riding are feeling the same thing that I have heard in my riding, which, of course, is an abysmal thing that families are facing, that they cannot make ends meet.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has been sitting here since 2015. He stands up in his speech touting the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau's record as if it were an accomplishment. Here is where we are today. We have the highest housing prices in the history of our country, Canada is the worst country in the G7 for food affordability and gas prices are astronomically high, but he has the audacity to stand there and talk about the accomplishments of his party over the last 11 years. Why will he not stand up, show some leadership and vote for our common-sense motion to take all gas taxes off for all Canadians for the entire year to give some real relief to Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister highlighted three areas that are very important to Canadian families, which are housing costs, food prices and gas prices. He has been sitting around the cabinet table since 2017. This is his ninth year. Here is where we are nine years later. Nine years later, we have the highest cost of housing in the country. We have high food prices. In all of the G7 countries, Canada has the worst food affordability. That is our record there. Of course, gas prices have become astronomical. Now, apart from presenting the spring economic update, the minister has an opportunity to support our very sensible common-sense motion to reduce all fuel taxes for the rest of this year. Will he stand up and show some true leadership that will bring real, meaningful—”
“Mr. Speaker, we just came back from two weeks in our constituencies, where we had the opportunity to meet with the people we represent. In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, I heard story after story of families and small businesses that are struggling. I wonder if the member could share with us what she heard in her riding at the other end of the country. I represent a riding in Ontario; she represents one in British Columbia. I wonder if she would share with us the types of things she was hearing. Perhaps it was different than what I was hearing in my riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, any time we make a very thorough and good explanation and ask questions of the government, we hear the Liberals get up and go back to 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and refer to other places, other governments and other prime ministers. Does the member think that is an effective or responsible way for our government to respond to members of the opposition, when we have a right in the House to question, to make suggestions and to make legislation better?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration bungled a simple decision to stop a known IRGC terrorist from entering our country, and Canadians still do not have clear evidence that the terrorist was stopped and turned back. There are reports, in fact, that say he just turned himself around and left the country. The Liberals are keeping the minister from answering questions, because they are concerned about what she will say next. Everyone is wondering why the Prime Minister is protecting the minister and not letting her answer questions. Can he tell Canadians, please, why she still has a job?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for acknowledging that I am brilliant in this debate. I appreciate him making that comment. The member refers to three by-elections in the country and is trying to correlate it somehow to what is happening in this debate here. We are debating the budget of the government and the indebtedness it is putting on Canadians. He wants to talk about politics and percentages in elections. I can say that if they keep this up, we will see what happens in the next election. We are here and not going anywhere. We are going to keep fighting for Canadians. Our job as members of the official opposition in this country is to hold the government to account. It is getting no free lunch. Canadians deserve better than what they are getting.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because we are talking about the future generation, our youth in this country. When we look at the budget, we are planning for the future and the youth are the future leaders of this country. Unfortunately, hope has been taken away from them. They cannot find jobs or buy a house. When they get married and start their families, they cannot live in the community in which they grew up because things are so expensive. When I said “tone-deaf”, I mean that. I wish the parliamentary secretary , the Prime Minister and the Liberal government would knock on Canadians' doors and find out what these young people are feeling. They are feeling despair and that the future is not bright for them. They are looking for opportunities outside our country, which would be a travesty.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary would have some credibility if he had not been saying the exact words from his seat in the House of Commons for the last 11 years. Liberals have had 11 years to get this right. For 11 years, he defended Justin Trudeau and now he is defending the current Prime Minister . For 11 years, we saw deficit after deficit. For 11 years, they have not delivered for Canadians. He is right about one thing, and that is that we say to get out of the way. We actually mean that they should get out of the way. They should listen to what we are saying and let the Conservatives run this country. Then we would see a big difference, because Canadians would be the beneficiaries of that, not their elite friends.”
“If we had transparency, we would not have the finance minister saying he is recusing himself from talking about Alto, the $90‑billion fiasco, because his wife is a senior vice-president in the firm. He said he was part of the decision, but now he is recusing himself because the world has found out that he has a vested interest in this from a family perspective. The bottom line is that Canadians are concerned about affordability, their grocery bill, their mortgage payment, their business and employment. The government is entirely tone-deaf to what Canada wants.”
“They do not have money when they are coming to Parliament and saying they are losing $67 billion this year. They certainly do not have money when they are saying they are going to be paying $80 billion in interest within five years, or that they are going to add more debt to the tune of $363 billion, so he comes up with this fancy thing. The other thing they are saying over there is that they spend less so they can invest more. How are they spending less? They are not spending less. They are spending more. In fact, the highest the Government of Canada has ever spent in the history of the country since Confederation is in this year's budget. Where they are spending, there is no transparency. We should not expect transparency from these Liberals. If we had transparency, we would know who had the green slush fund money.”
“At that time, $80 billion will be about $30 billion more than we are putting into health care. We could cut the GST to zero if we had that $80 billion. Every Canadian would benefit, but no, we are putting it in interest. The economist, banking Prime Minister may have a good education from good academic institutions from around the world, but what he does not have is practical experience. The guidance he has given, which he learned from his predecessor and mentor Justin Trudeau, to the finance minister is to continue more of the same. Let us put Canada more and more in debt. In fact, they are trying these fun, fancy words now, such as the sovereign wealth fund, which of course we know is a debt fund. They could have a wealth fund, but they would have to have money for it.”
“I think if we knock on the door of any Canadian family and ask them what is more important to them, paying interest or having better health care, we would get a 100% response that it should be health care. Instead, we see the opposite here. The Liberals keep borrowing, ballooning that interest line item in the budget to about $80 billion in five years. Here is what $80 billion a year can do for Canadians. With $80 billion, we can twin the TransCanada mountain pipeline. With $80 billion a year, we can build 47 hospitals the size of the very beautiful new Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital in the heart of Vaughan, in the York region where I live. With $80 billion, we can buy 800 F-35 fighter airplanes. Eighty billion dollars is more money than all the money transferred as part of the Canada health transfer.”
“There is no hope for turning the economy around, no hope for making life more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we then see they are borrowing all this money. They cannot print the money; they are borrowing it from banks and financial institutions. One would assume they are borrowing from Canadian banks, American banks, Asian banks and European banks. They are borrowing the money wherever they can. What does that mean? That means we have to pay interest on that, like every Canadian has to on their mortgage, their car or any loan they have. Canadians pay interest for this. Interest payments are projected this year to be more than the amount of money we spend on health care.”
“We saw deficit after deficit, year after year. In fact, the previous prime minister, who the current Prime Minister considers a mentor, only had a $31-billion deficit projected for this year. (1130) This document came out, and the finance minister announced with much fanfare that it was good news for Canada that we were going to lose $67 billion. The only person who uttered that was him. Then, of course, there was resounding applause from the Liberals, very happy and thrilled that Canadians and the Government of Canada were going to lose another $67 billion. I scanned through the book to see what their projections were. I thought maybe, just maybe, it was just this year, but no. Over the next five years, they are projecting loss after loss, indebting Canadians an additional $363 billion.”
“The day when the economic update was presented at four o'clock in the afternoon, literally 90 minutes before this document was presented in the House, every single Liberal minister or secretary of state responding to questions in question period made sure that they got the following words in: that within the next hour and a half, we would hear “good news” from the finance minister . I thought, “There has to be something good here.” I waited for him to get up, as did all of us in the House and many Canadians across the country who were hoping for some pocketbook relief for them, their families, communities and businesses from coast to coast to coast in this country. Then the finance minister started speaking and these books were distributed to all parliamentarians. We quickly looked through to get the summary. What did we see?”
“We went back and forth, and then we waited with much anticipation for this new document that the finance minister presented in the House on Tuesday of this week, which he titled “Canada Strong For All: Spring Economic Update 2026”. I thought, “Maybe there is something in this. Maybe they needed more time to get it right and get it together.” Then I was further encouraged, as were Canadians, because the day before this was presented, the Prime Minister went to the media and said that we were going to have “good news” from the finance minister .”
“Nonetheless, the Liberals presented their budget with much fanfare, an omnibus project in a book that was some-464 pages, I believe, which showed that they were continuing more of the same kind of leadership they had learned over the years from the prime ministership of Justin Trudeau. Of course, we know that there is not much change on the other side, because most of the ministers were Trudeau ministers. We were not expecting much change, but we thought that with a new Prime Minister touting a résumé of economic and banking credentials, we would see something somewhat different. Unfortunately, what we saw was more of the same deficits year after year, giving very little hope to Canadians that the Canadian economy would turn around anytime soon. Nonetheless, the budget was presented in the House and debated.”
“Given that the fiscal year started on April 1, we thought that it would be prudent to at least present the budget a couple of months in, given that the election delayed that a bit, but no, the Liberal government decided that it would be best to present the budget to the House of Commons, to Parliament, a good seven months after the fiscal year had begun. In essence, seven months after it had spent seven-twelfths of the money in the budget that it was to present, which of course makes no sense at all and certainly does not make any sense to Canadians who know that one cannot spend money before one earns it or has the right to spend it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak about the spring economic update. Before I begin that, I want to reiterate what a privilege and an honour it is to represent the wonderful people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, a very vibrant, diverse and dynamic community in the heart of the GTA. Today, we are debating the spring economic update. I want to give a little context as to where we are. The Liberal government was re-elected on April 28 of last year. We were waiting with bated breath to see the first budget come out. We thought it would come out in May or June at the latest.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just another tax-and-spend Liberal specializing in costly credit card budgeting. Canada now faces the worst grocery inflation, the worst household debt, the highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Canadians know they cannot borrow their way to prosperity. There is more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes and more of the same. Will this Liberal Prime Minister commit to capping the deficit at no more than the already reckless $31 billion left by his predecessor and mentor, Justin Trudeau?”
“Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet another attempt by a Liberal minister , and the Liberal government, to consolidate power around the office of the minister in giving full discretion to the minister and overlooking the importance of parliamentary oversight, debate and listening to other opinions, which, of course, leads to questions of transparency. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is a good idea to consolidate power in the hands of the minister and not allow parliamentarians to have a fulsome debate on an important issue like this.”
“Madam Speaker, what we see, yet again, from the Liberal government and the Liberal minister is another power grab giving more autonomy to the minister to make decisions, which, of course, leads to less transparency, less accountability and less parliamentary oversight. Does the member opposite think it is a good thing to give more power to the ministers and to have less transparency, less parliamentary oversight and less debate for all parliamentarians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found massive security screening failures with people allowed into Canada by the Liberal government. Ahmed Eldidi entered Canada on a visitor visa. The Liberals let him in despite a 2015 ISIS propaganda video showing him participating in a brutal beheading-style attack. This guy is just one of many, as the same porous Liberal vetting process has allowed hundreds of IRGC agents into our communities. Will the Liberals support the Conservative request for the Auditor General to audit all immigration screening processes, yes or no?”
“For these reasons, our recommendations include, among others, one, that international study permit approval be tied directly to regional housing availability, health care capacity and employment; two, that there be stronger language proficiency requirements to ensure student success; and three, that financial liability for institutions should be established when students overstay or file asylum claims. I ask that the dissenting report opinion be appended to the committee report.”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(b), I rise as a member of the official opposition supporting the dissenting opinion appended to the report. We found that the government failed to consult communities on whether they could sustainably handle the massive influx of international students. While institutions collected record profits, international students were left at food banks and suffering from the heightened local housing crisis their large numbers were causing. The lack of oversight from the government has recently come to light in the Auditor General's report, which found that the government investigated only 2.6% of the 153,000 suspected cases of international student fraud.”
“I wonder if the member can share his thoughts on whether he thinks incompetent people should be kept in their portfolios by the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is quite correct. It does not seem like the minister is willing to resolve any of the problems in immigration. In fact, we have terrorists being allowed into the country. Over 700 IRGC agents have been allowed into the country, and one has been deported. The government thinks it is a record to gloat about, but only one has been deported. The international student program was a complete fiasco from the get-go. We have seen nothing but a deterioration of our immigration system over the past 11 years. We are calling for the Prime Minister to fire not only the Minister of Immigration but also the two previous ministers who were very complicit in the problems we are having today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that the minister has chosen not to speak about her bill today. My question is simple. Does the member know why the minister chose not to rise today to speak about her bill, which is important?”
“Why is the Minister of Immigration , today, not standing to speak to what she deems to be an important piece of legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's excellent speech highlights many issues and many problems we have seen and continue to see in our immigration system in Canada. In fact, as the House very well knows and Canadians know, for the past 11 years there has been a systematic decline in how we manage the immigration file. More importantly, perhaps, I want to thank the member for the tremendous work she has done in the House, in the Parliament and in previous Parliaments, focusing on these issues and bringing concrete solutions to the Liberal government, to hopefully get it to listen, which it has not done yet. Today, we have two former ministers of immigration and one current Minister of Immigration . They are not standing in their place to speak.”
“I wonder why the minister is hiding behind the member and not standing in her place, if it is such an important piece of legislation to the department, to speak to it in the House and defend it. Instead, she has asked the parliamentary secretary to the House leader to speak to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the member's speech, right at the beginning, he said this is an important piece of legislation. I could not agree more. All legislation that comes before the House is important. This particular piece touches on immigration, the IRCC, the IRB and the CBSA. There are all of those issues. The member referred to 2014. He has conveniently and completely avoided saying the name Trudeau in this House. I do not think he has mentioned it once since the 45th Parliament started. We all know what has happened to the immigration system over the last 11 years. The Liberals have completely destroyed it. This is an important piece of legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague hit the nail on the head with respect to how the government looks at Parliament and how it acts when it comes to having to do something as important as the system we are talking about today. My question for my hon. colleague is simply this: Why does she think the government would not say that it has made a mistake and that it did not do a good job? Being humble is a good attribute. Why do the Liberals not just say that they did not do a good job and they did not want to listen to us at the standing committee? Why do the Liberals not just ask us to help them get the job done right? There are seniors, people and families across the country who are so dependent on the system that they are unfortunately suffering as a consequence of the lack of action from the government.”
“There are other countries around the world that are a lot bigger than Canada, and the member knows very well that it does not take them five, 10 or 15 years to get a program right.”
“If he did, he would know that for any suggestion of any opposition member, whether it is a member of the Bloc or the Conservative Party, any amendments we propose, the Liberals very cleverly vote against them. If they do not get their way in a standing committee, they just bring it to the House and get the NDP to vote for them and vote us down anyway. In terms of getting meaningful amendments across and actually listening to what other members of Parliament have to offer in order to make legislation better, the member and his party always vote against. My question to the member is simply this: Why is it taking so long to get this program? He says it is the biggest ever in the history of Canada.”