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 10 of 22.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for raising the issue I have also been working on for years on behalf of British pensioners within Saanich—Gulf Islands. There have been many years and many missed opportunities to try to negotiate with the British government on how it indexes the pension for Canadian expats. It does not make sense, and as the member rightly pointed out, it is a cost to the Canadian economy. It is also a needless worry to wonderful people. I am sure that each member in their own riding has had people come see them about this unfairness. I carried with me a stack of petitions to try to hand directly to Boris Johnson when I went to a COP in Glasgow, and I had the help of my hon. colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to truly thank my colleague for his speech on investor-state dispute settlement. I actually think that things are worse than how he described them in his speech. My colleague said that large transnational corporations currently have the right to take part in agreements, but it is worse than that. They currently have more rights than Canada does in such agreements. Could my colleague comment on the fact that trade agreements do not always have to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism?”
“How can the government possibly object to an amendment from the Senate that says to get its act in order within the next three years? We should, in this place, absolutely refuse to accept the government's advice to reject Senate amendments. If there ever was a time for sober second thought, it is now. This is embarrassing. Are all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, okay with passing a law that turns the clock back 26 years? Come on. This is embarrassing. I ask members to please accept the Senate amendments.”
“If they had nothing to be ashamed of, why would they not bring forward a bill that, on its own, is about updating the Canada Elections Act and that clearly asks Canadians what they want us to do with their personal and private information, those of us who are federal political parties? Certainly, the Green Party tries very hard to abide by all the personal and private information protections, as though the law already applied to us clearly, and we will continue to do so. This is an abomination. This is a very reasonable amendment from the Senate that, three years from now, once the bill is passed, we would have a better plan of action. The government's motion today said it is planning to bring forward something soon. Will that be sooner than three years from now?”
“I will not disagree with the government for one minute, but it would be far better to not bury in an omnibus bill on affordability the taking away of rights regarding the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. It would be far better to be open about it and say that they are going to amend the Canada Elections Act and talk about the personal and private information of Canadians. I think the government should be ashamed. Every Liberal, and every floor crosser who has joined this gang, should be ashamed of being associated with a piece of subterfuge as vile as saying that this is an act on affordability, to not look over there at part 4, that it has nothing to do with us, that it is something they are doing about privacy information and they are making sure that it took effect 26 years ago.”
“That particular case study should make us, as parliamentarians, and as people who believe in democracy, deeply concerned that the personal and private information of Canadians can be misused in the hands of those who develop systems, such as Cambridge Analytica did, to target, use algorithms, distort and deliver information that is misinformation directed to particular people who are likely to believe, as they are pre-inclined and predisposed to believe, that misinformation. In that case, in that study, the committee pointed to the need of protecting the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.”
“There is currently a court case in British Columbia because the privacy commissioner for British Columbia has said that this is a matter of law. Provincial political parties in British Columbia have to abide by the protection of privacy information for Canadians. We know that there was a study before the ethics committee back in 2018. The study was entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook”.”
“The Senate amendment just says that three years from when Bill C-4 takes effect, three years from now, the government must come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. This was not that long ago, so I will cite the source, but there was an iPolitics news story from March 3 of this year where the leader of the government in the House , and of course I will not say his name but we know it, said, after citing that he was the former national director of the Liberal Party, “I can assure you that, for our part, and I assume all parties follow the same basic standard, we essentially comply with PIPEDA”, referring to the acronym for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.”
“Why do I say hurrah for the senators who put forward some common-sense amendments? What is wrong with the government that it will not accept the Senate amendments? If one has not looked at the Senate amendments, standing by what I have said, it is extraordinary that the Government of Canada would say it is bringing into effect a bill that would take effect 26 years ago. What kind of offence has the Liberal Party committed in the last 26 years that would require a time machine to say that laws that we might have had to protect the personal information of Canadians did not ever exist, were never carried and, on top of that, took effect in the year 2000?”
“They thought that the government would not want to accept their amendments, so they did not make amendments, but they did put on the record that a subcommittee was concerned. It would have been tough for the Senate to make amendments because the pressure was on them to not make amendments. In fact, the leader of the government in the Senate went so far as to misstate to other senators that Bill C-4 had been carried unanimously in this place. I noticed they were careful in the preamble we just heard to refer to unanimous support from recognized parties. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc were happy to carry this unanimously, but my objections were recorded on the record, even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “that the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted”. Why do I dig in my heels?”
“[ English ] The Senate looked at it and asked why, buried in the affordability act, there were amendments to the Elections Act. It is all well and good that, in the preamble the Speaker just read, the government says it is sending this back to the Senate and that they have no business in this, letting them slap them on the wrist for thinking they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Elections Act, but the government had this coming and was well overdue to start looking at sections of omnibus bills. I think it is scandalous that we did not. I know a lot of senators were disturbed by Bill C-12 . They looked at Bill C-12 in committee, and they said that it had not been properly studied and that it would abuse the rights of refugees, but they held back.”
“I remember the day this bill was tabled in June. I took around the hard copy of Bill C-4 to various friends on the side of the House of the Liberal Party and said, “Look at this. Why does this bill have to come into force in the year 2000?” People would say that it must be a typo, and I would say, “No, that is not a typo, my friend. That is a time machine.” I have never seen before in this place that a bill in the future tense would come into force 26 years ago. [ Translation ] There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that there are things I have never seen before. [ English ] I am not the only one who has never seen this. [ Translation ] However, for the moment, this is a part of the bill that strikes me as odd.”
“Canadians will be scandalized, and it is unfortunate that the way of going in this Parliament has been for things to be passed so quickly that people do not even know what they have passed. Part 4 of Bill C-4 is all about one thing: removing any thought that there is any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal private information of Canadians. The bill is a bit of overkill, one might say. At one point in part 4 of Bill C-4, it says that any of the provisions for protection of privacy are “deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.” If they were deemed never to have come into force, I suppose it is a bit of overkill to also make sure they are repealed, but it gets worse. The bill then says that part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the government is not willing to consider sober second thought, having put forward such a scandalous abuse of omnibus budget bills as is found in Bill C-4 . What we have in Bill C-4 , which is titled the affordability act, are many measures that are mostly about affordability, but magically, there is this bizarre inclusion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act. (1030) [ Translation ] Part 4 of this bill contains amendments to the Canada Elections Act. What does the Canada Elections Act have to do with the cost of living? [ English ] It is not just bizarre that we find in part 4 of Bill C-4 , which is the affordability act, unaccountably, changes to the Canada Elections Act. The content of those changes is, and I will use the word again, scandalous.”
“In other words, incarceration and treating this as a criminal matter has been ineffective, and rehabilitation through treatment programs is urgently needed.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands on an issue that remains one that I know many members of this place would agree is a national crisis, and that is that we continue to see far too many deaths from opioids, by what are essentially fentanyl poisonings. I want to particularly pay tribute to one of my constituents, Leslie McBain, who lost her son in that crisis and is one of the founders of an extraordinary group of bereaved parents called Moms Stop the Harm. The petitioners are asking the government to consider that it is ineffective to treat those suffering from drug abuse as criminals. They are people in need of medical assistance and mental health supports to help deal with addiction.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question I asked earlier to the Bloc Québécois, to my friend from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton , was specifically about an Indonesian company that has bought up most of Canada's pulp and paper mills. It is called Paper Excellence. This agreement, and its investor-state agreements, will limit our ability to regulate to protect our forests and those jobs. Does the hon. member not agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. As he knows, I am very concerned about trade agreements that include investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. That gives rights to foreign companies, like the Indonesian company Paper Excellence for example, which bought the vast majority of pulp and paper companies across Canada, particularly in Quebec with Resolute. Under this agreement, Paper Excellence would have the right to sue the government if the government implements environmental protection measures or measures to protect unions and workers. Does my colleague agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, most Canadians know AtkinsRéalis by its original name of SNC-Lavalin. It is the now disgraced company that is so corrupt it cannot do business anywhere in the world after bribing Gadhafi's family to get a contract. We also know that AtkinsRéalis got the deal of deals when Harper sold it all of AECL for $17 million. Now, using the name of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, it masquerades as having real technology for small modular reactors that do not exist anywhere. Can the parliamentary secretary possibly justify why we are throwing billions of dollars into this without a single day of debate in this place about nuclear technology?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-9 because I think the definitions are so vague and there is so much discretion that the bill may not survive court challenges later. Does the hon. member not think it would be better to take the time here to debate it and get the bill right than to see it defeated in the court later?”
“Certainly, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, in its brief to the minister, has pointed out how the intimidation and disruption sections are overly broad and create a really large risk of discretionary enforcement by police that will leave people who are engaged in lawful exercise of their democratic rights and free speech on the wrong side of a law that is vague and discretionary. I urge the minister to please reconsider and withdraw the motion under debate at the moment so we can have a full discussion and debate, which is what Parliament is for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the hon. minister on the matter before us right now, which is shutting down debate on Bill C-9 , rather than the details within Bill C-9. I think the bill needs much more debate and discussion, which is why I hope the government will withdraw the attempt at closure on Bill C-9 before we have had an opportunity to discuss it properly. I know the minister will say it was stuck at clause-by-clause. In this case, I will absolutely agree that the Conservatives were obstructing in the committee on Bill C-9 . They have been so routinely accused of filibustering and obstructing when they have not that I feel it is worthwhile pointing out, in this one instance, that there has been an attempt to slow down Bill C-9. I find much of the bill objectionable.”
“The petitioners note that there is currently a project that is moving toward federal approval for the Centre Village, New Brunswick, gas plant under the company's name, Proenergy, the RIGS project. Given the significance of this area, in terms of both its biodiversity and its critical importance to Nova Scotia and all of Canada, the petitioners are calling for a full independent environmental and climate impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act, and for the designation of the Chignecto Isthmus, including the Tantramar marsh, as a federally protected area. They are also looking for enforcement of all the laws that protect the biodiversity and the ecosystems of this area. Members will remember Bill Casey, who used to be the member of Parliament for that area. He raised this issue frequently as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition about an issue my constituents are concerned about, but the issue is actually on the other side of the country and relates to a proposed project that will affect the Tantramar marsh that is on the Chignecto Isthmus. For those who are not familiar with the Chignecto Isthmus, it is the very low-lying land mass that connects the rest of Nova Scotia to the mainland of Canada. It is under extreme threat from climate change. Since the 1980s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified that this area was particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. In other words, we could lose Nova Scotia's connection by land to the rest of Canada, which would have a multi-billion-dollar impact for sure.”
“Mr. Chair, I made many of those points as well when I spoke earlier this evening, because it is clear that this is an illegal war, but we are put with a false choice that if we do not oppose an illegal war, we are somehow just giving in and abandoning the brave people of Iran who are fighting against a brutal regime. Does the hon. leader of the NDP not believe we can do both: work hard to protect and stand in solidarity with the brave people of Iran, and denounce an illegal and reckless war undertaken by the United States and Israel?”
“Mr. Chair, I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary can agree with me that there are times when we land on the same place, like with the need to get rid of former Iranian Guard members who make Iranian Canadians and others in the diaspora feel afraid. We have to deal with that, but can we also agree that a lot of Iranian dissidents who hate this regime also object to the bombing by the United States and Israel?”
“Madam Chair, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Thornhill that it would be a great day to see the end of this regime. My problem is that the lessons of history tell us that when wars have started for regime change, they often fail to achieve regime change and worse leadership is put in place by the same kinds of thugs we were hoping to get rid of the first time. I ask the hon. member if she sees a pathway to the people of Iran being able to choose their own leadership in a situation of conflict that is escalating out of control.”
“Madam Chair, the United Nations Charter is not a legal technicality. If we did not have it, this world would be in a great deal more trouble. However, I do agree with the hon. member. We should not turn away. We should never have turned away. We should not have allowed what happened in Syria to happen, with the butcher al-Assad killing his people. We turned away because it was difficult, but a community of nations working together can take action, and we need to revive the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.”
“Madam Chair, the member for Mount Royal knows that is absolutely not the position Greens would take. We do believe that there can be multilateral diplomatic efforts, and we have always supported that the people of Iran deserve to be protected. Unfortunately, the responsibility to protect doctrine was wrecked when Canada went along with bombing Libya until Libya became a failed state and we destroyed the opportunity to use responsibility to protect. It is a nascent notion in international law. We must defend it, and we should be able to use it, but only within the constraints of those things that are legal.”
“Mr. Chair, it is not possible to rewrite the United Nations Charter from a desk in this place. It is the case that sovereign nation-states are recognized for their sovereignty as nation-states. I will agree with the hon. member. I, myself, dislike the Iranian regime, but the sovereignty of that nation does not rest in its people, unfortunately, any more than the sovereignty of any nation can be determined by public opinion polls.”
“Not every word, but most of what everybody has said in this room tonight is about how we protect all of the world from an escalating conflict whose ultimate consequences could be beyond the disaster that we dare not speak its name. (2025) With that, I conclude.”
“We need to now seize the chance, somehow, against the odds, while we are still respected in the world, for Canada to play the kind of role we played long ago, but not that long ago. I am thinking of Hon. Lloyd Axworthy. He was our foreign minister from 1996 to 2000, and he played a key role in getting the landmine treaty. He is calling on the government to respect international law, to speak out and to ensure that we are on the right side of history. For this, it means that those of us in this room tonight accept our responsibility, not just as partisans but as human beings on a planet in peril, and put aside the obvious fun of making political points and giving partisan jabs. There has not been a single person speaking tonight with whom I would not agree with most of what they said.”
“President who, right now, 60% of Canadians see as a threat, we really do need to insist on the United Nations Charter being observed and respected. Otherwise, who will stand up for us if someday we need to remind people that the United Nations Charter defends Canada's sovereignty? We need to defend the sovereignty of even those nations in which we want to see regime change as quickly as possible. No one will disagree, I do not think, that the Iranian regime is a despicable and brutal regime that oppresses, suppresses and kills its own people. However, that does not mean that the United States and Israel had any legal grounds to bomb Tehran. That was reckless and dangerous, and we will continue to see the consequences, maybe into generations.”
“Still, Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world.” He said, “the world [needs] a way out now”, and that way is “de-escalation and an immediate cessation of hostilities.” How can Canada help? Can we help? We do need to stop saying there is no international law. There is such a thing as international law. It's the United Nations Charter. It is critical that Canada continually defends the fact that there is a United Nations Charter. We are wrong when we decide it is difficult, awkward or embarrassing to point out when the United States violates the international rule of law by, for instance, seizing the President of Venezuela. It is hard to point these things out, but when we have a U.S.”
“We must stand with international law. However, we are Canadians, first and foremost. Around this room and through all parts of Canada, I am sure what we most want is for our country to do the right thing, and that might mean that we have to put partisanship to the side. [ Translation ] I think we can set aside partisan differences. The question we must debate is this: What can we do now? [ English ] We know the Minister of Foreign Affairs said clearly that we need to move to de-escalation. She is not alone in that. I want to quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the emergency debates of the Security Council. Of course, we know that around the table of that Security Council are some of the prime actors in avoiding peace in this conflict.”
“Mr. Chair, I thank my dear colleague for giving me the opportunity to participate in this evening's incredibly important debate. [ English ] Since the morning of February 28, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians have been scared. Canadians are praying for peace, wondering if the world is unravelling even faster than before. We have wondered, since Putin invaded Ukraine four years ago, if the world is capable of pulling together for peace. My goal tonight is to try to find some common threads, because what this must not be is purely a partisan debate. It is far too easy to point out that the Prime Minister made a mistake on February 28 in being too quick to issue a declaration that we supported the bombing. It is obvious now, and it should have been obvious that day to the Prime Minister, that this is a violation of international law.”
“Mr. Chair, a regime change in Iran may be sought by many, but it would not necessarily lead to peace and prosperity for the people of Iran if it were to come through an armed conflict. I recall, as the member will as well because he was with that government working with John Baird, when on June 14, 2011, I was the only member of Parliament to vote against Canada bombing Libya. I asked John Baird at the time about the people who we recognized as a legitimate government of Libya, which included people from al Qaeda. He famously said that, although we may not know the people we were supporting, we could be assured of one thing, which was that they could not be as bad as Gadhafi. The reality now is that we have a failed state in Libya. It exported a lot of arms to conflicts and terrorism around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Bloc Québécois leader, for his speech. Now, I want to quote the President of the United States, who said, “When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen.” Does my colleague think, as I do, that the President is looking in the mirror?”
“Mr. Speaker, I addressed this question earlier to the official opposition with some trepidation because it is information I have from friends within the Vancouver area who are also, like me, associated with the Anglican Church and are very concerned that some members of the Iranian national guard may be obtaining a baptismal certificate to hide their real background and intentions in this country. I second the member's call that we absolutely look for any members of the Iranian national guard who are masquerading as real refugees. I want to ask him if he has heard similar concerns.”
“Mr. Speaker, a former senior commander of the Canadian Forces, retired Major-General Denis Thompson, has said on the record that he thinks it is “highly likely” that Canadian exchange officers in the region knew in advance. Does the minister have any comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier to another hon. colleague on the Conservative benches if there was not an improvement in seeing if, now that we have Bill C-20 's approach, we actually are no longer describing Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency and there may be more transparency—”
“Mr. Speaker, as I look at the creation of Build Canada Homes, I am particularly interested in the fact that the government moved fast and used something rarely used, called a special operating agency, which is under Treasury Board rules. I wonder if the lack of transparency involved in that troubles the member for Thornhill.”
“The petitioners are very specifically relying on all of these facts and calling on the government to fix the Canadian disability benefit, alleviate the financial pressures and ensure that every person with disabilities across Canada receiving any disability support receive a one-time emergency support of $5,000 tax-free that is not means-tested and cannot be clawed back by any order of government.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of deep concern for the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands and across Canada. Every MP in this place knows of this scandal, that people living with disabilities in this country are far more likely to be living in poverty. We voted and worked in this place to get the Canadian disability benefit through. However, at this point it is not lifting people out of poverty. Therefore, the petitioners are asking the House to look at the reality that the financial pressures from rising costs are disproportionately falling on these same people with disabilities across Canada. Any disability and emergency supports they receive end up occasionally being clawed back and are not treated as benefits they can keep.”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 28, the United States and Israel launched illegal attacks against Iran. Lloyd Axworthy, former foreign minister of this country, wrote in the Toronto Star that day, “Canada once rejected America's aggressive, unlawful foreign policy. Today [the Prime Minister ] embraced it”. He went on to say, “Under the [United Nations] Charter, cross-border uses of force are prohibited except in two narrow cases”. He points out that Operation Epic Fury applies to neither. I will ask today, will the Prime Minister belatedly—”
“Madam Speaker, as I come to my feet today on this legislation and on the programming motion, it just has to be said that we are shaken to our core and, as Greens, horrified by the acts of violence directed at synagogues just within the last day or two in Toronto. We are debating legislation and wondering if it would make things better, and I do not know, because I agree with the civil liberties reviews of the legislation, saying that the definitions around motivated crimes against places of worship are so indistinct that they could end up criminalizing legal protest. I ask the hon. member to please reconsider the nature of the government's attempt over and over again to bulldoze things through this place without adequate study.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech. I have a lot of concerns about Bill C-9 , but that is not what we are talking about today. I do not like the idea of putting so much importance on using motions like these to study a bill quickly. I have a problem with the part of Bill C-9 that makes it possible to break the law during a demonstration for being too close to a building. A demonstrator might not realize that there is not enough space between the demonstration and the building. What does the member think about this problematic aspect of Bill C-9?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Housing . British Columbian MPs were stunned when the provincial government killed the B.C. community housing fund. We now have projects that are ready to roll. The land has been purchased, the zoning is completed and the permits are in place for senior, low-income housing and veterans housing on Galiano Island, on Mayne Island, in Saanich and across British Columbia. Will the federal government step up to create a defined program for shovel-ready projects to make sure that the housing gets built for the people who need it?”
“Mr. Speaker, this legislation certainly needs the amendments of the Senate. Bill S-2 must include dealing with the first-generation cut-off. I want to ask the hon. member if she heard an answer when she asked the minister if the government was prepared to support the Senate amendments so this bill could be passed expeditiously. I am still not certain, and I ask the hon. member for Nunavut.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make sure this is on the record, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North said clearly that everyone in the House was in favour of the process we are taking now because the motion received unanimous consent. The people who put it forward at that moment knew full well that I would object but that I was travelling with the Prime Minister to Tumbler Ridge. That is a choice I am very honoured to have made, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making it possible for all opposition party members to be on that flight. I did not know it would be to my disadvantage in saying no to the process we are now going through regarding the omnibus budget bill.”