Elizabeth May
Saanich—Gulf Islands, British Columbia · Green Party · Canada
“It is easy to roll out solar panels, except that our provincial utilities get in the way. In any case, the cheapest source of electricity, reducing the cost for everyone, would come from focusing on renewable electricity. I do think there is some promise, although it needs a lot of work.”
“We are the only party in the House that does not receive a penny of support from the parliamentary budget, being both unrecognized and unfavoured. I am glad my colleagues from the NDP received funding to make up for what they lost when they ceased to be a recognized party. I have less money, but I am here, and I am not alone.”
“When it became clear that children were dying of Reye syndrome in New Brunswick because of forest aerial spraying by the forest industry. He stated, “I don't like to see people dying. This is one of the things I really wouldn't like to see.”
“That is not the only thing I want to concentrate on, although I will take most of the time, and I am grateful for the chance to speak to this bill now, finally, in this place. Regarding the removal of the excise tax, I have asked before about this in question period.”
“There is not even a link in the language used within the spring economic statement, the budget itself or Bill C-30, but it clearly, by inference, rests on this assumption: More pesticides are going to reduce food prices and help the economy. That is a leap. Let us say that is wrong, based on the evidence, in two ways.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is a friend, so when I say a friend, it is not just rhetoric, but I am disappointed. When Bill C-30 was first tabled, I asked the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,092 lines we hold for Elizabeth May, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues have thanked everyone already. I hope that no one was left out. I would like to send everyone my best wishes for the summer. May they all take good care of themselves and stay united for Canada. [ English ] We will be back in September. Let us stand united across party lines. This country is a country that has more in common than in difference. What makes this country the best place in the world to live in is that we take care of each other and love our neighbours. No matter what may be going on around us, know that we are blessed.”
“We need more protection for human health, not less. If the government tells us that it wants to build Canada strong, then it must stop and think twice. It is killing the precautionary principle and running the risk of killing Canadians. This is not hyperbole. It has happened in the past. The government and the right hon. Prime Minister are opening the door to the most regressive policies Canada has ever seen to protect human health and the environment. It is not even helpful for the economy, but they do not bother doing the studies. They just make the assumptions and issue the press releases.”
“When it became clear that children were dying of Reye syndrome in New Brunswick because of forest aerial spraying by the forest industry. He stated, “I don't like to see people dying. This is one of the things I really wouldn't like to see. But at the same time, knowing the forest as it is, my decision will have to be with the forest and with the future of New Brunswick.” We are opening the door and going backwards. Is there any other country on earth going backwards on pesticide regulation? Members have guessed it. It is the Trump White House. This story is from the New York Times on May 7. It states, “Trump Administration Lifts Ban on ‘Cyanide Bombs’ on Public Lands”. It did that so it could kill coyotes. In this country, even without Bill C-30 , the PMRA reversed itself to allow for liquid strychnine to kill gophers on prairie lands.”
“It says that, if the government agency decides it is too dangerous for the environment to use this particular pesticide, and it does not set out the criteria but gives the vaguest of language, cabinet, if it decides in its political discretion to “protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”, would allow a dangerous pesticide to be used. So be it. There is no appeal. That is it, and an extension can last up to nine years. I am incensed that this is happening. If people think there has never been a time in Canada where anyone would ever put the economic interests of an industry ahead of human health and safety, let me quote from 1976 and the then minister of natural resources for the province of New Brunswick, Roland Boudreau.”
“It is not going to be possible to harvest shellfish from an area where 100 years' worth of industrial waste was stirred up so we could move bigger tankers loaded with dilbit, which is a mixture that cannot be cleaned up if it is spilled. This is all madness. It is not food security for first nations if we keep contaminating the territories where they harvest their food. I will come back to the ecosystem issue. I think it is nonsense that this would help food production because food production in agriculture needs pollinators. The reason the EU has reduced neonicotinoid insecticides is that the insect pollinator population is going down, which is related to the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids. Bill C-30 has now gone through clause-by-clause and has received all of the amendments it is going to get.”
“It has been planting eelgrass and doing much work in what had been an industrial setting to get it clean and healthy enough to produce shellfish that can be harvested for human consumption, which is a right the Tsleil-Waututh Nation has. Quite casually, we keep hearing from government ministers, both in British Columbia and Ottawa, that we can dredge the Vancouver harbour. This has been thrown about as if it were a great idea, without any consideration. They have not talked with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. If we dredge the Vancouver harbour, we are going to stir up 100 years' worth of heavy metals and toxic chemicals.”
“We should strive to ensure that we have reliable and certified organic markets for the growth and production of food products so that we have markets in countries that have stricter standards for health protection than we do. We are not doing that; we are going in the other direction. It is astonishing to me that, when we think about food security, we are not talking about indigenous communities. Food security often means being able to access food off the land. I will use as an example the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, which has been doing extensive work on restoring the ecosystem health of Burrard Inlet.”
“We should strive to have the same high standards as the highest standards found around the world, so there would be no country where Canadian exports would be rejected at the border because they have too many toxic chemicals in the residues. That would be, I think, a good place to go to ensure that we are providing good trade links and reliable export markets for Canadian farmers, but we do not. (1240) Of course, the reason Canadian beef is not allowed in many EU countries is that, years ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, found that the hormones injected into Canadian beef increase the risks of human cancer. That is why we lose markets there.”
“EPA and Dow Chemical to not allow it to export it anymore because it was too dangerous. Canada kept saying it was okay, but Canadian buyers could not get any because Dow Chemical was not, by law, allowed to export its remaining stocks anywhere. I am thankful for this because we would have kept it registered forever, as far as I can see. We continue to use glyphosate while the EU is restricting it. We also continue to use neonicotinoid insecticides. In terms of trade, it means that Canadian food exports, grain exports, have been rejected at the border in France and in other EU countries because the residues of pesticides that are legal in Canada on our food crops are not legal in the EU.”
“There is not even a link in the language used within the spring economic statement, the budget itself or Bill C-30, but it clearly, by inference, rests on this assumption: More pesticides are going to reduce food prices and help the economy. That is a leap. Let us say that is wrong, based on the evidence, in two ways. It is wrong on trade and on ecosystems. On trade, our partners and allies have stricter pesticide laws than we do. As a matter of fact, historically, Canada has the weakest pesticide laws of our allies. By the way, just as an example, we were the only country in the world, well, certainly the only country in the G20, that never banned Agent Orange. We never banned 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or 2,4,5-T, which was half of Agent Orange. It remained legal in Canada until there was an agreement between the U.S.”
“They show up, they have shovel-ready projects, they are ready to go, and they keep their promises. I was in Edmonton. I cannot quote any mayor in particular, nor what I want to, as it would not be fair, but they certainly do not feel the love right now. They do not feel that they are engaged as partners, and they do not know where to find municipal infrastructure funding. We will move along to division 8 of Bill C-30 , which is the most hidden and ugliest part of this omnibus budget bill. It is the reductions of protection for Canadians' health and the environment in the regulations made under the Pest Control Products Act. All of this appears to rest on one unproven, untested assumption.”
“While they are building housing, and by the way, we cannot build a house unless we can flush the toilets in that house, municipalities are crying out for predictable funding for water and waste water. I would love to have seen that clearly in the spring economic statement. We are getting rid of a predictable fund, created under Stephen Harper for municipalities for transit and infrastructure, and we have replaced it with press releases. I really hope the government means it and the money will be there for municipalities. I also hope that the Liberals will very quickly start to recognize that the local orders of government are the strongest and best partners we are going to find. They are more reliable than the Prime Minister 's friend Danielle Smith.”
“One of the best things Stephen Harper did was to say that the excise gas tax was a permanent source of funding for municipalities for transit and infrastructure. Bill C-30 and the spring economic statement does away with that. The Liberals say, “We are going to have this municipal fund. We are going to help with infrastructure for municipalities.” I was just in Edmonton at the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They do not find the pathway to be clear. There is no map. It is not an easy route to navigate for local governments to figure out if it really replaces what they had in the transit funding and how they get from here to there.”
“It is easy to roll out solar panels, except that our provincial utilities get in the way. In any case, the cheapest source of electricity, reducing the cost for everyone, would come from focusing on renewable electricity. I do think there is some promise, although it needs a lot of work. There is a discussion paper out on an east-west electricity grid, but to build that out, we really need to shift off of fossil fuels and on to renewables. (1235) Another point I want to make about the excise tax is that, and this goes back to 2009, former prime minister Stephen Harper took the gas tax, which it was then called, and decided to make that fund permanent and at the disposal of municipalities for transit and infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities never ceases to point out that municipalities need predictable, stable funding.”
“That is not the only thing I want to concentrate on, although I will take most of the time, and I am grateful for the chance to speak to this bill now, finally, in this place. Regarding the removal of the excise tax, I have asked before about this in question period. The excise tax, I realize, is announced as a way of alleviating pressure and helping Canadians with affordability. Greens really recognize the affordability crisis. We see it as absolutely connected to the climate crisis. The cost of food goes up when crops fail because of climate disasters and extreme drought here in Canada and around the world. There is an affordability crisis. The cost of housing is increasingly out of reach. With respect to the cost of energy and electricity in our homes, we could have virtually free electricity once we install the infrastructure.”
“That is found on page 96 of the spring economic statement, and it only says, “Announces the government’s intention to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include consideration of food security and cost of food”. In reading that on that day, on April 28, I certainly did not say, “Oh my goodness, ‘consideration of food security and cost of food’ must mean that the government is about to put something in that will allow cabinet as a whole, with political consideration, to overturn a decision of the minister and the department responsible after they have done a study on the danger of a pesticide.” It does not leap out at one. In fact, it is hidden. Not only does it not leap out; it is hiding, as it is in Bill C-30 in division 8.”
“Certainly we are in favour of protecting auto workers with a worker retention grant and anything to do to help with housing, and that makes it difficult. We have to vote against Bill C-22 because the bad and the ugly are thrown into the same pot, and we have to vote on that one pot. Now, I mentioned casually a moment ago that I do not think this is a legitimate omnibus bill. To be a legitimate omnibus bill, all the measures in the bill must relate to the budget in a fundamental way. I suggest that it is pretty sketchy that there is only one quite anodyne line to be found in the whole spring economic statement as a justification for the worst thing I have ever seen in an omnibus bill, which is the deregulation of pesticides.”
“I urge Canadians who are concerned to get their thoughts in to the government. Let us hope that we do not see legislation in this place implementing anything that was in those discussions documents when we resume the sittings of the House in September. Also good in the spring economic statement, which is also found in the legislation, is the re-establishment of incentives for electric vehicles. There are few things for which I would say, “Yes, I would certainly vote for that, and I am pleased to see it.” However, we do not see any details here. One line in the spring economic statement says, “Flexible pathways for automakers to meet Canada's climate objectives”. We have not seen any details on that yet, but we hope to. There are other things.”
“For the good, I was very pleased to see in the spring economic statement and in the funding, funding for endangered species, particularly the southern resident killer whale. My pleasure in seeing that in the spring economic statement was somewhat, or profoundly, undone by a May 8 discussion paper that suggested that the provisions of the Species at Risk Act would be lifted to allow the extinction of species. Particularly at threat are the southern resident killer whales because they are in the way of more tankers and pipelines and such, but it was good to see reference to whales in particular in the spring economic statement. I am also relieved, having mentioned the May 8 discussion documents, and I will not mention them again, that the discussion period has been extended from June 7 to July 22.”
“I had not been able to get a speech in at second reading, and then the bill was passed on division. There was no recorded vote. Off the bill then went to committee. Which committee did it go to? It went to the finance committee. I have nothing against the finance committee. I have spent a lot of time with it these last few weeks, hoping to be able to speak to my amendments. However, it was quite wrong, in principle, to send it to a committee that does not have any expertise and that did not have the time, because of the rush, to hear from a single witness in key areas where scientific knowledge, background and independent expertise could be brought to bear. (1230) Let me just go back to the theme of the good, the bad and the ugly and take that apart.”
“If there are changes to the environmental standards in this country or to health standards, from my point of view as a parliamentarian, those should go to the committees that have expertise in environmental health. That is not the case here. Everything in the bill, whether it was about privatizing airports, getting skilled workers, getting rid of the excise tax or really drastically reducing protection from dangerous pesticides, went only to the finance committee, and the finance committee was given very little time. How did the bill get to the committee? After first reading of the bill, which was on April 29, the day after the spring economic statement was tabled, there were only three hours of debate in this place before the government brought forward a motion for time allocation on May 25.”
“An omnibus bill is a lot of things all at once in one package. It is the good, the bad and the ugly. It is all in one bill. This makes it difficult for members of Parliament, because inevitably and invariably, as is the case for me right now with Bill C-30 , there are things that I like. I will call those the good, and I will discuss what those are. Then there is the bad, and there is the ugly. What is really offensive in this kind of process is when the bill is not split up so it could be studied by committees with expertise. We do not actually have committees called the “we will study all the bad things committee” and the “we will study all the ugly things committee” so we could send the ugly things to the ugly committee.”
“In the same vein, I am very grateful to everyone on my MP team here in Ottawa, Michelle and Anna; and also, of course, in my Saanich—Gulf Islands constituency office. They all work very hard, and it is their work that allows me to stand here before us today to speak to the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30 . I have two objections to the bill. There are reasons I find this process an offence to democracy, and reasons I find the bill offensive, but there are two big categories. The first is that it is an omnibus budget bill. I would suggest it is even improperly considered an omnibus budget bill. There is also the fact that it has been subject to bulldozer practices to accelerate it to the point that it has not been properly studied. What is an omnibus bill? “Omnibus” is from the Latin. “Omni” means that it is a lot of things.”
“We are the only party in the House that does not receive a penny of support from the parliamentary budget, being both unrecognized and unfavoured. I am glad my colleagues from the NDP received funding to make up for what they lost when they ceased to be a recognized party. I have less money, but I am here, and I am not alone. We present more amendments on more bills than much larger parties do, not because we want to be meddlesome but because we want to do the work. I particularly want to stop for a moment to thank my chief of staff, Debra Eindiguer, and my legislative director, Steven Parkinson. They work harder than any team, and they are non-partisan. I have never even stopped to ask the people on my staff team if they joined the Green Party or not, because our job is to work for the people who elected us and for the people of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, not just a pleasure, to rise today to speak to Bill C‑30 , an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. We are told that this bill is absolutely necessary to implement the spring economic update. [ English ] Before I get too far into discussing Bill C-30 , because it is my last chance to speak in this session of Parliament until September, I do want to acknowledge once again, and recognize, as I think we all do, that we are on and are honoured to be on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. We give them enormous thanks, a huge meegwetch , for patience and tolerance with us. I do not get many opportunities to thank the people I need to thank the most.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for an extremely important review of the gaps between the spring economic statement and the reality for Canadians. I just wonder if she would like to expand on any of the points she has made, because they were excellent.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like it placed on the record very firmly that the Green Party does not support Bill C-22 . We understand it is going to be passed on division. We want our position on the record.”
“Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's comments regarding division 8 of Bill C-30 . He addressed the issue of pesticides and said that reducing health and environmental protections in the agricultural sector is very serious. I just want to ask him if he has any further comments to add.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I misspoke. The term “prison labour” has connotations that I did not intend. The projects I mentioned in homebuilding in Winnipeg involve people who have been convicted of crimes, have served their sentences and then avoid recidivism by building homes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am really impressed, hearing the member for Elmwood—Transcona talking about his personal background. I have been impressed when travelling in Winnipeg, with the co-op work and housing and building using prison labour by Shaun Loney. I wonder if the hon. member, as someone experienced in the trades, thinks that holds promise for getting tradespeople into a field where we have a lot of skills gaps right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is a friend, so when I say a friend, it is not just rhetoric, but I am disappointed. When Bill C-30 was first tabled, I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary for finance if it would not be wise to remove division 8 from an omnibus budget bill, so that the pesticide provisions would not just be studied by the finance committee, but go to the appropriate committee of environment or health. At the time, he said he would get back to me. I do not blame him that he did not have time and, certainly, I know those decisions are not necessarily made by the parliamentary secretary for finance at all. However, does he now not regret, having heard how significant the concerns are from across this country that this bill was not properly studied, that division 8 received no expert review at all?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is my final petition. It is a shame, in 2026, that this needs to be said. The petitioners are calling for the government to declare the overdose crisis in Canada a public health emergency, to call for action related to opioid deaths, recognize that this is a public health emergency and take steps based on the advice of experts.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is an e-petition with over 1,181 signatures. The petitioners call on the government, in the effort to make Canada an energy superpower, to support renewable energy at least as much as it supports fossil fuels. They call on the government to commit to protect our biosphere while becoming an energy superpower and, in order to do that, ensure that renewable generation receives at least dollar for dollar the same kinds of subsidies that flow toward fossil fuels. The petitioners ask Parliament and the government to provide a legislative foundation that will provide financial support for renewable energy at least as much as fossil fuels and ban, by legislation, coal-fired electricity generation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will briefly summarize my three petitions. Constituents and others have asked that this petition be tabled here and that the government take action on an issue that we rarely hear about, which is the looming threat of the commercial farming of cephalopods. These are octopus and squid. Commercial industrial farming operations in other countries are threatening to come into Canada. The petitioners ask that large-scale aquatic farms of cephalopods be banned in Canada, that we take action to ban the importation of farmed cephalopod products and that we prohibit the breeding and raising of these sentient beings within farms in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the difficulty I have with this, again, is that we have had working groups and consultation groups, and if we ask the first nation peoples of Cold Lake, as well as those around the Cold Lake operations and the Kearl mine, there have been repeated breaches of their rights and contamination of their waterways, yet Imperial Oil last year, in 2025, had a profit of $3.5 billion. It seems that perhaps we have a disconnect between where the wealth of the area is going, which is not to sustain people's livelihood or assist in protecting the environment, and the treaty rights of the peoples of the region. I would ask again that when the government considers reconciliation, it would consider honouring the promises made in the treaties we have.”
“It would be easier for me to accept that the government, either the current government or previous governments, is concerned about the multiple breaches of the treaty rights of the rights holders throughout the area of the oil sands development, if it ever had been in the past. It would be easier to believe that something was going to happen, if it had ever happened in the past. I put it again to the government: When will it show concern for the environment in this area and the continual breaches and leaks?”
“What Imperial Oil did in the past, when it initially did not tell the community that it had what it could see was a breach of containment, was pump the water out of the areas where there was extensive recent contamination, and then pump it back into the same container, which was a sieve and was leaking. Years before, I had participated in environmental assessment hearings where this particular oil sands mine was approved to go ahead, with conditions to make sure that the river, the treaty rights, the rights holders in the area, and the indigenous people were actually protected. Their health, the environment where they live and the fish they eat needed to be protected. Dr. David Schindler warned the environment committee of this in public testimony more than a decade before these recent, continuing leaks and breaches.”
“David Schindler appeared before the fisheries committee in this place and testified that his research had found the component parts, chemical contaminants that could have come only from the tailings ponds, not from any natural source in the environment, of contamination that violated the Fisheries Act, yet the government had taken no action. Dr. Schindler made it very clear to the fisheries committee that there had already been extensive contamination of the Athabasca River from what are called tailings ponds. The difficulty is not so much that Imperial Oil is experiencing leaks. It is that the containment system is a failure. It is basically a sieve.”
“Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we have and the reason I raised this issue again is that I did ask in the House, on April 20, for a better answer. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment attempted to answer at that point, saying that the government was concerned and was “working closely with the Crown-indigenous working group along with the affected communities”, and that it would find “a long-term, science-based solution”. The difficulty I have with that answer is that it has been more than a decade since one of the most prominent scientists in Canada, the late Dr.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is indeed nice that we have seen the clock at midnight. I cannot break the legal fiction, while we are all here together, but it is time for Adjournment Proceedings. I am raising a question I initially raised April 20, two days before Earth Day. I had, on a previous occasion, witnessed an exchange between the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona and the Minister of Energy , in which he was dismissive of the concerns of the most recent oil spill from Imperial Oil on the Cold Lake First Nations territory. I asked on that occasion if there might be an interest on the part of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in amending his answer to reflect deep concern for the fact that it is not just one oil spill or one leaking tailings ponds in northern Alberta in the area of the oil sands, it is multiple. Some hon.”
“Madam Speaker, as the hon. parliamentary secretary knows, I believe that if we followed the rules of this place, we could far more easily come to consensus around how long each bill should have at second reading before going to committee and so on. The rules of this place say we cannot read a written speech. Knowing that a member cannot deliver a speech unless they have the knowledge in their head to stand up and speak would winnow down the number of members that a House leader uses to negotiate with the other parties. “We have 100 people ready to speak.” Really? Without written notes? I do not think so.”
“He is a brilliant man who is respected around the world for his experience in the banking sector, but not for his experience in Parliament at our level, because he does not have one day of experience in Parliament. That is what frightens me. He has things to learn. As brilliant as he is, however, he does not understand that he has things to learn.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Drummond said, I have been a member of this place for 15 years. What an honour it is to represent the communities of Saanich—Gulf Islands and Sencoten- and Lekwungen-speaking indigenous peoples. The fact that I represent a very small party always causes problems, but right now things are worse for me than ever before. Mr. Harper's majority government from 2011 to 2015 was an awful time for me. Now, however, too much is being done too fast. Right now, I do not get a sense that the current government respects Parliament or Canada's institutions. In my opinion, it may be because of our Prime Minister 's experience.”
“Madam Speaker, from my point of view, as leader of the Green Party, I did not think it was working terribly well in the minority Parliament because the Conservatives supported every egregious Liberal bill like Bill C-5 . I still feel the pain of the bulldozer across my back when I think of Monday, June 16, 2025. I do not forget, because June 18 was a Wednesday, and I went to Marc Garneau's funeral in Montreal. I then went back online to try to fight off the changes in Bill C-5, and by Friday, Bill C-5 was done. That was offensive to democracy. This is offensive to democracy. We can make Parliament work better, yes we can, but that is not an excuse for bulldozing through bills that need work.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand the member's frustration, but I do not accept that that is an excuse for the programming motions. Again, in 15 years in this place, I have never seen anything like putting a bulldozer on steroids in the way that programming motions are being used, and it is offensive. Again, I know there is frustration. Inevitably, between a majority government and an opposition, tools like filibusters will be used, but the point is that we do not have to be in a rush to get out tomorrow or the day after or next week. We could take our time and make sure we get this bill right rather than have it thrown out by the court later.”
“We can reasonably expect it of our government to ensure that our private data is not left in an architecture of surveillance that allows it to be accessed by foreign governments, any foreign government. The Citizen Lab research that was just published in Policy Options yesterday talks about U.S. homeland security as an example, but I do not want my government asking tech companies to save, store and access private data about Canadians that is then available to foreign governments. We have certainly learned a lot about foreign interference, and we are waiting for the foreign interference registry to actually be established since we passed that law some time ago. At this late hour, and I know I'm out of time—”
“If, good heavens, the Citizen Lab research is right and Canadians' private data would be available to the U.S. homeland security folks in large tranches, none of us are going to feel particularly happy about that. Our government should be making sure that our privacy is protected. It is an inherent right that we have. I would like to say it is a right in the same way first nations have the right to clean drinking water, although we have now been informed that they do not have the right to that but only the hope of a gradual or eventual “realization” of a right. That term is just so extraordinary. Well, we have a right to privacy, and I do not want to hear that it is dialed back to a gradual realization of a right. We have a right to privacy.”
“It was at least the CBC, saying that the Government of Canada is prepared to fundamentally change one aspect of this, which is not having to hold Canadians' private data for a year but maybe bringing that down to six months. Is that going to be presented? I do not know. We will be going into committee after the programming motion is passed. There will be an opportunity for new amendments to be tabled, but not, of course, from me or the member for Vancouver East , because we had a deadline some time ago, and we either had to bring it in by that deadline or could not bring in something new. There may still be that opportunity to improve the bill. I certainly hope so, because what we have in front of us may violate our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, open up personal data, surveillance data, and do serious damage.”
“They do not seem to be concerned, despite all the work and the full year that has gone by, that we could get this right. Again, we hear that we have run out of time. Well, we have not. I do not think any of us are going to expire in any particular moment. We could meet next week. We could get together again and have more time for witnesses to actually discuss without a clock ticking, for witnesses and experts to share with the members of the committee in a respectful way how we can improve this. I saw that the hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil mentioned it earlier, but we are seeing news across the news wires that the Minister of Public Safety is about to make a step. Who knows, but certainly it was not the National Enquirer saying this.”
“One would have hoped that year would have been used well by allowing a real discussion and continually striving to have the best possible surveillance architecture to protect privacy, to give law enforcement what it needs, without tests of access that are so low, the reasonable grounds to suspect, which we do not think the courts will find to have been an adequate ground to seize personal information. We are hearing concerns, again, from tech companies, constitutional and privacy law experts, those who work in the field and others, like OpenMedia. I am honoured to claim that the executive director of OpenMedia happens to be one of my constituents, so I also speak on behalf of my constituents when I stand here at this hour. We are hearing concerns, yet those voices seem to have just gotten annoying to the members of the government.”