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 11 of 22.
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Mirabel a question. The member for Winnipeg North said that we have had plenty of time to study this omnibus bill, which is over 600 pages long. However, first reading was on November 18, and then we had the Christmas break. We did not have time to properly study all the sections and each very complicated provision, particularly those concerning high-speed rail. Does my colleague share my view that we have not had enough time to properly study this bill?”
“Areas where there is a no-fishing rule allow fisheries to recover and be more plentiful in the areas surrounding the protected area. The petitioners call on the government and DFO to work with relevant government branches to simplify the communication and ensure that marine protected areas are put in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands to present a petition through which constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands are looking to see the government pursue the promise of protected marine areas. It has been such a long time, as it has been decades, since it was first proposed that there be a protected marine area next to the Gulf Islands National Park. It was so long ago that Jacques Cousteau endorsed the idea. In any case, there are 11 classifications for marine protected areas, and depending on how they are classified, a different department would oversee the marine protected area. Petitioners are pointing out that, when areas are closed off to fishing, there is a net benefit to fisheries throughout the region.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my esteemed colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is clear. The proof is there. We have no indication that the current government will uphold environmental laws protecting endangered species. It is clear from Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 that those things do not matter. The only thing that matters is the bulldozers.”
“Mr. Speaker, as has also been pointed out by another colleague from the member's bench, some of the high-speed rail will impact sensitive areas. The problem with building everything fast is this. [ Translation ] I can say it in French. I asked a Bloc Québécois colleague what the French word for “bulldozer” is. It is the same word. [ English ] We are seeing a lot of bulldozing over process, procedure, democracy and ecosystems. It goes hand in hand. [ Translation ] I think there are some problems with this omnibus bill. [ English ] I agree with my colleague that we should study it. We want rail across Canada, but we need to know what we are getting into.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say this quickly to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. As he knows, I am the only opposition party member who voted for the budget itself. I largely did that because the budget, on page 348, committed that the eligible uses for investment tax credits would not include “enhanced oil recovery”. It was 10 days after I voted for the budget that the memorandum of understanding with Alberta said to forget that thing written in the budget. I know it is not in disappearing ink as I still see it here in the budget, but the reverse has been promised to Danielle Smith of Alberta. I support that we friendshore. I support what the former deputy leader Chrystia Freeland said, which is that democracies need democracies, not dictators. Therefore, it bothers me if our international trading partners are Saudi Arabia—”
“(1815) When I consider all the things that comprise this giant, over 600-page bill, I am offended. I will vote no, and I urge my fellow members to make it less bad by supporting the amendments from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway .”
“I find it deeply worrying that we now have to pass an omnibus budget bill in quick fashion, because it has to be done by later tonight. We all know that is the plan. It is going to be whizzed through, because they whizzed through that process in the unanimous consent motion of February 13. I find this bill deeply offensive. There would be changes to CEPA without proper analysis and study and changes to the digital services tax without us even debating in this place the fact that we are repealing a law that we passed to bring it into effect. We would lose the oversight under the Red Tape Reduction Act. One would have never expected us to bring in the right for any individual minister to exempt an entity from a law, which still remains in place in this bill but with more safeguards and somewhat more transparency.”
“It was subsequent to that, but before the budget, that our elbows dropped when Donald Trump said that he did not like the fact that Canadians were bringing in a digital services tax. We were doing that in concert with colleagues through the European Union. We need to get a hold of these digital giants that are ripping off our private information for their own profit. We need to have a way of holding them to account. They are eroding our democracy and attacking our public media and newspapers. I remember a prominent Liberal and respected former minister in this place, the hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who called it “bootlicking” when Trump said that he did not like the digital services tax and the Prime Minister said that we will get rid of it really quickly. I am too nice to say that, but I can quote Lloyd Axworthy saying it.”
“It would mean that before a minister exempts an entity from the application of a law, there must be a 30-day public consultation period. Unlike the original version of this act that said that the minister will make it public as soon as it is “feasible” but with no timeline on that, thanks to amendments in committee it is now within 30 days that it must be made public. However, that does not allow me to vote for this bill. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway also pointed out, and I will certainly vote for those amendments, that this bill would do away with the digital services tax. While that was not as much of a surprise, given the budget, as other things, and I think regulatory sandboxes were never foreshadowed, certainly in the election campaign, we were told it was “elbows up”.”
“They come from the U.K., the Tory government and the Bank of England, where regulatory sandboxes were initiated in order to innovate financial instruments, services and products and were exempted from laws to be able to innovate and experiment. I do not mind it so much, although innovation in financial instruments is what led to the collapse of the housing market in the U.S. by bundling together worthless mortgage papers and calling it a product, but it is more dangerous when they are playing with our health and environment. We do not have any way of really regulating what is going on, even with the admirable work of the member for Newmarket—Aurora . The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway referred to it as a “backroom deal”. No doubt that is what happened. It makes this slightly less awful.”
“member for Newmarket—Aurora , who put forward the amendments in committee that would make this less bad, but in case anyone's wondering, spoiler alert, I am not going to vote for this. It is less bad, but it is still pretty awful. I cannot vote for a bill that would say that any minister can exempt an entity from acts except for a listed few, even though the ones listed are good. On this notion of regulatory sandboxes, as far as I'm concerned and despite the fact that committee members were told in finance committee by Treasury Board officials that regulatory sandboxes are normal and routine and that we should all be used to them by now, I cannot support it.”
“Bill C-5 , which was rushed through in June, of course, was the first time any prime minister in Canada has ever used the King Henry VIII clause to say that if something in the bill breaks other laws we have already passed, that is okay. I was not prepared for this to show up when I was reading this monstrous bill and to find in division 5, well over 500 pages in, that Bill C-15 put forward the notion that, unlike in Bill C-5 where the cabinet as a whole could break other laws, an individual minister, at his or her discretion, in areas within his or her jurisdiction, could exempt any entity from the application of any law except the Criminal Code. (1810) I want to thank the hon.”
“We are doing a quickie on that one. Before they can turn around, members will find that this bill also includes a number of time machines. We never had time to talk about it in this place, but Bill C-4 , which is currently before the Senate, in part 4, changes privacy rights under the Elections Act. That is a doozy, by the way. We never got to debate that in this place. The bill will enter into force when the Senate is finished with it, and it will enter into force 26 years ago, because it enters into force in the year 2000. Things are being done in this place that should scandalize the members of the House, because they are profoundly anti-democratic. They represent power grabs.”
“This bill says, no, we are never going to review it. That is it. There is no sunset on that. Equivalency goes forward. A lot of environmental law experts would have liked to testify to that. They would have liked to testify at the environment committee about that, but no amendments occurred to the changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are included in Bill C-15 . It is egregious, as we have heard from other speakers here tonight, and I should remember the names of the members who spoke so eloquently to the changes that are being made to veterans' rights. I know the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned it. We have here in this bill retroactive changes to avoid legislative changes to help our veterans in long-term care have access to the reimbursements to which they are entirely entitled.”
“It deals with the fast-tracked expropriation of lands next to Alto high-speed rail. I support high-speed rail, but I think we needed more time to study this in the House. We have changes made here to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My attempts to put forward amendments to that in the finance committee were summarily defeated, but we never properly discussed them. The public has not heard as much as a peep about the things in this budget implementation act, Bill C-15 , which would change things for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, weakening environmental protections, particularly around a practice that has been under way since 1988. The act has been around for a long time. To change it to say we want equivalency with the provinces so that we do not duplicate is a good thing, but it needs to be reviewed now and then.”
“It was important to be there together with the other party leaders, but I deeply regret that the governing party chose that moment to put forward a unanimous consent motion to fast-track the review of this bill at report stage and third reading. It is, as we have heard and as Canadians have heard, a bill of over 600 pages. I remember the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012, Bill C-38 . I was appalled when Stephen Harper tried to push it through and did in fact push it through. It took longer to debate, in fairness, but it was over 400 pages. The omnibus budget implementation act of spring 2012 was over 400 pages. Here we have the omnibus budget bill to budget 2025-26 and it is over 600 pages, with much of it, as I said, unanticipated. It touches on more than 20 different laws, bills as diverse as anything we have heard of.”
“Mr. Speaker, I usually begin a speech by saying it is an honour or a pleasure to stand to speak to the bill before us, but I am so deeply appalled and offended by what has been going on in this place since June that I have a hard time speaking without the rage making my voice tremble. Bill C-15 , the omnibus budget bill, is offensive at every level. It is very much an omnibus bill. A budget implementation bill is supposed to implement a budget and not contain surprises, things that were not in the budget and were not even mentioned. However, we are presented with them here and it is all supposed to be fast-tracked. It was fast-tracked by a UC motion, and it was done on Friday the 13th when I was unable to object to the fast-tracking of this bill. I do not regret going to Tumbler Ridge.”
“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many constituents, I rise to present a petition expressing their deep concern that Canada is off track to meet its targets under the Paris Agreement. These are not political targets but are based in the science, which demands that for the security of humankind, all life on the planet, our children and our grandchildren, we hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 2°C. I will not read the petition, but many steps need to be taken that constitute bold climate action. The petitioners ask for the government to act swiftly.”
“It is a foregone conclusion that without much more robust actions to reduce emissions, we are going to risk hitting tipping points in the atmosphere that put us on a path to unstoppable, self-accelerating climate change that threatens future generations and human civilization itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. colleague is aware that recent studies, including by the government-appointed experts in the Canadian Climate Institute, have shown that Canada is not on track to meet any of our targets. That includes that Canada is not on track to meet the climate targets put in place by former prime minister Stephen Harper and that Canada is nowhere near the targets under former prime minister Justin Trudeau that we are supposed to be meeting, because we have, as the Climate Institute report pointed out, weakened more actions than we have strengthened.”
“I note at this hour, as my time is running out on putting forward my argument in this late show proceeding, that time is also running out for the climate. We are dealing with atmospheric changes that are irreversible and can be self-accelerating without quick action. I look forward to this debate.”
“However, some days later, not that long thereafter, a commitment was made to the Government of Alberta in an MOU that such investments to increase oil production would in fact qualify for further subsidies to encourage further oil production. This was contrary to the exact wording of the budget we had voted on that day, which said “Eligible uses include” and then listed some, but not enhanced oil recovery. That left us in this place, and across Canada I might add, with some significant questions about where we are as a nation. What can we make of the commitment of November 17 that we will act to avoid exceeding a 2°C global average temperature increase and will take steps to ensure that the nature strategy and our commitments globally are observed?”
“We are now almost four months later and have not yet seen the nature strategy. I certainly hope that someone representing the Prime Minister here this evening can update the House on when we are on getting the nature strategy brought forward. It is critical if we are going to meet the commitments that are due by 2030, it now being 2026, that we see action, that we see commitments and that we see funding. It is also important to mention, and I look for any kind of an update on climate commitments, that the budget that was tabled that day and that we voted on shortly after this exchange in question period included, at page 348, a clear commitment that what are called enhanced oil recovery measures would not qualify for investment tax credits.”
“He stated: I can confirm to the House that we will respect our Paris commitments for climate change, and we are determined to achieve them. I can confirm with the House that consistent with our Kunming-Montreal commitments, the nature strategy will be released in the coming weeks. The Prime Minister also mentioned that it was important that we be “on the path for real results for climate, for nature and for reconciliation.” My question at this hour is this. Now that we are looking at the answer that was received, and since then the changes that have been made in government planning, we are still, according to all reports, not on track to meet our Paris Agreement targets. We can measure things in weeks, but certainly “the coming weeks” suggested that we would see the nature strategy relatively quickly. This was November 17.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House tonight, in Adjournment Proceedings, to pursue a question I asked on a memorable date, November 17, 2025. It was a day on which we were going to vote later in the day on the budget itself. My question pertained to the budget. It was for the Prime Minister . In that instance, I asked him if he would agree that there was a deficiency in the budget, in that our legally binding Paris Agreement commitments were not mentioned and that we had not yet seen what was described as a nature strategy: Canada's commitments under COP15 of the biodiversity convention, otherwise known as the Kunming-Montreal agreement. It was a very strong answer, but there have been some inconsistencies. The Prime Minister did respond, and it is important to repeat it for the purpose of the Hansard.”
“We must work tirelessly and do what we can to ensure that there is peace around the world, particularly for the children of Ukraine and for the people of Ukraine. [ English ] For all those who have suffered and died at the hands of Russian forces, and, yes, I grieve with the Russian mothers too as they have an impossible leader who has taken them to heartbreak and disaster, peace cannot just be a dream. We have to make it real. We have to rescue the Ukrainian children who were kidnapped from their families. We have to reunite those families. We have to pour into Ukraine the help it needs so desperately. With those words, I join all colleagues here in saying, slava Ukraini , peace and victory to Ukraine.”
“More bombs do not bring peace. As other members of Parliament have said today, peace will come at a negotiating table. It is extremely important and fundamental that Mr. Putin understand that Canada, every single last one of us, stands with Ukraine, which means Russia has made itself a pariah. When the government changes, perhaps we can welcome it again into the community of nations, but there was no Russian flag at the Olympics. There will not be a Russian flag where civilized people gather, because we recognize what President Zelenskyy has said: Putin is “war itself”. Now, as we stand here on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of that impossible war, we must make peace possible. [ Translation ] We must choose peace.”
“He actually said, of Putin, “He is war itself.” He said that to stand with him is to stand with unending war. I cannot help but feel, as I always have since we first started debating in this place what we would do for Ukraine, that we have not done enough. In some ways we cannot do enough. We have NATO. We have the United Nations. We have massive efforts. (1550) I am grateful, as my colleagues have said, that the Government of Canada has consistently stood with Ukraine. I am grateful we have welcomed Ukrainian refugees to Canada. However, more should be done with sanctions. We need to cripple the Russian economy. We need to do more. We need to seize the assets of oligarchs and see that they are liquidated and that those funds go to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government. War cannot be the solution to war.”
“I so wished for the day that he could come back, when there was peace in Ukraine and we could celebrate him as the leader who survived a dreadful and unjust war. We still pray for that. We know that Putin miscalculated. He thought he could end a war in three weeks, but he miscalculated the corruption of his own military, the lack of consideration for what it would mean to the world, and the solidarity of Europe. Today, on the fourth anniversary, the President of the European Union is there in Ukraine. Today, in the United Nations, a resolution was carried whereby 107 nations said, “We stand with Ukraine. We stand with peace.” Today, President Zelenskyy spoke of Putin and of his lifetime political career of destruction, of hatred, of war.”
“I thought the world, the community of nations, would stand with Ukraine so clearly that it would not be long before this was over. The sense of the courage of President Zelenskyy, I thought, was the variable that Putin did not count on. He thought that not that many Ukrainians would stand up and defend their country. He thought, as did the United States at that time, that when they said, “Do not worry, Mr. Zelenskyy, we are sending a plane for you,” and he said, “I need ammunition; I don't need a ride,” that was the surprise: a genuine hero of his country, someone actually elected, someone who had been a comic on television. He was the unexpected variable of courage that was so unusual in our times, when leadership is in name only. President Zelenskyy addressed us here for the first time almost four years ago, on a TV screen.”
“[ English ] When we think of the naïveté that we had, the wonderful thought of the political theorist Fukuyama, it seemed so clear that we had The End of History , as he wrote in 1992, that the political and ideological evolution of nations led inevitably to a time of the rule of law, to liberal democracies that lived within a set of rules that were predictable. A land war in Europe? [ Translation ] It was impossible to imagine. It could not be true. [ English ] When Putin invaded Ukraine, we saw the signs. We saw it was coming, but it still seemed far too impossible to believe. I will never forget February 24, 2022. For the first time, I put on yellow and blue ribbons, and I thought that I would put them on every day until this awful war was over. Now, Putin thought he could end it in three weeks.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, it is almost impossible to imagine and believe that, for the past four years, there has been a war in Ukraine that is the result of the brutality of one country, one man: Mr. Putin and his pointless and cruel war. [ English ] We are united in this country. We are united in this Parliament. I want to thank every one of my colleagues who spoke, including the hon. Minister of Defence , my friend and colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman , the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . [ Translation ] I completely agree that we stand with Ukraine. We stand with the people of Ukraine. It is unacceptable that our world is being torn apart by a war that was impossible to imagine five years ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, in an open letter to the world from an island, an ordinary woman denounces a crime that the world refuses to see. She writes, “My name is like millions of others”, Ikay Romay. “I am an ordinary Cuban woman—a daughter, a sister [and] I write this with a broken heart and trembling hands. What my people [are experiencing] today is not a crisis.” It is a crime. “It is slow, calculated murder.... And the world looks the other way.” Let us look at Cuba, at what the United States is doing to it, and ask ourselves, “Which side of history do I want to be on?” This is a crime. I ask that we share her message. Children and babies are dying in incubators because of blockades. People are dying for lack of medication. I ask that we do not look the other way. Thousands of people sharing her message will make a difference.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to put a question directly to the hon. leader of the official opposition. As an Albertan who, I know, is also a proud Canadian, would he let Canadians know where he will stand if there is a referendum on Alberta separation?”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say he will stand up and call out whenever refugees are made scapegoats. Why did he not stand up and call out Bill C-12 ? Right now, the senators are trying, with sober second thought, to take out the anti-refugee components of that bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend from Calgary Nose Hill, as a proud Albertan, has thoughts on the premier's recent proposal around immigration as a referendum for Albertans since it touches on today's question. I am baffled by the fact that she is encouraging more people to move to Alberta, with Alberta complaining the federal Liberals are not doing enough to get immigrants to Alberta. If she has thoughts on this as a proud Canadian and Albertan, I would be grateful.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of residents from within Saanich—Gulf Islands and, increasingly, from across the country, I should add, who are concerned with the state of Canada's waterways and watersheds. Petitioners recognize that riding alongside the climate crisis comes a water crisis. They call on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to update Canada's water laws to ensure that no industry or corporation would take precedence over the health of Canada's waterways and watersheds. Of course, our water is essential for human health. They call for Canada's water laws to be updated with the guidance of professionals and specialists in the field of water conservation.”
“Speaker, at the moment, all I would like to say in terms of debate is that I am grateful to have the [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] submitted, and I look forward to voting on them, but I will be unable to participate in debate at the moment due to circumstances [ Technical difficulty—Editor ].”
“seconded by the member for Nunavut, moved: Motions Nos. 2 to 9 Motion No. 2 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 43. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-14, in Clause 58, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 28 with the following: “Criminal Code, as enacted by sections 8, 9, 11, 37 and 40, apply only with respect to an offence” Motion No. 4 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 70. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 71. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 72. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 76. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting Clause 77. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-14, in Clause 78, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 36 with the following: “Act, as enacted by sections 60 to 62, 68, 73” She said: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know foreign interference is a threat to Canadian democracy. It was confirmed by the Hogue commission, and we have taken steps, at the federal level for federal elections, to deal with the threat of foreign interference. Is there anything being done and what is being done now to consider the threat of foreign interference to provincial referenda that could break up this country, when we know people in the White House are encouraging separatism? What are we doing to prepare?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands' call for Canada to be in the forefront. We are too late to be in the forefront, but like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I drive a plug-in, a hybrid. For those who talk about range anxiety and not having enough charging stations, this is a good step. A hybrid is not as expensive as a full electric, and I can use the three-prong plug in friends' garages when I park while I am visiting. I rent, and the landlord agreed to let me plug it in there. It has an adapter. It is very versatile. I agree with the hon. member: I do not have servicing problems or battery issues either.”
“They call on the House and ask the government to support educators, communicators and community leaders, who are trying to raise awareness and action for a sustainable future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. They have raised this concern with me in person as well as in this petition. They call the attention of the House to the ongoing joint ecological, social and economic crises, sometimes referred to as a “polycrisis”, and they ask that the Government of Canada extend leadership in that area to recognize how many system boundaries are being exceeded. In other words, the ecological ability of the caring capacity of the planet for human activity is being exceeded through massive human consumption, industrial symptoms and, particularly, the climate crisis. They call on the government to provide national leadership on environment and sustainability, education, and the importance of leaning on indigenous knowledge and wisdom.”
“Know wherever you are that we are praying for the injured, for the 12-year-old little girl fighting for her life in hospital. We will be with you this day, yes, and whether we are believers or not, we are all one in the human family and we hold you all close. If there is ever any opportunity for us, as individual members of Parliament, to do anything to alleviate the pain, the suffering and the grief of the people of Tumbler Ridge, we are with you today. [ Translation ] We always will be.”
“I will try not to. I want to send my love to our dear friend, the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies . This is the kind of thing none of us want to have happen in Canada, but it happened, and in a place like Tumbler Ridge, which is so small. Everyone knows everyone, and I know that the member of Parliament knows everyone. It is a time that our hearts are broken. [ Translation ] We are not just a nation, we are a proud nation. We are also a family. [ English ] We love each other. [ Translation ] Today, our hearts are broken. [ English ] I think of Matthew 5:4, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”, but that comfort may feel far, far away right now if you are in Tumbler Ridge.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister from the bottom of my heart for his thoughtful words. They were truly touching. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for sharing thoughts that are very difficult to say out loud. [ English ] It is hard for any one of us as parents to imagine what the community of Tumbler Ridge is going through. [ Translation ] I would also like to thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for saying something very important, namely that we stand together and are united at this time. I would also like to thank him for mentioning the tragedy that is unfolding today in the Anishinabe nation. Meegwetch . I would also like to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party, who, like me, is a member of Parliament from British Columbia. [ English ] There are no words. Politicians will try to find words.”
“Speaker, I would ask you to please consider the matter and direct the government to immediately remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper until such time as it can reintroduce it with only those sections that have not yet been adopted, the warrantless access sections. I also draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime called for Bill C-2 to be passed. That violates the same question rule. Even worse is the part the Speaker will find in Hansard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-2 immediately. Fortunately, I said no. Otherwise, the government would have found itself in error and contravening all our rules.”
“In this case, we know Bill C-2 came forward in June. I thought, when I saw Bill C-12 , that the government would remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper. I was informed later by the minister responsible that the intention was to reintroduce Bill C-2 with only those sections that related to warrantless access, as the rest of Bill C-2 had been put into Bill C-12. As such, I would like to direct the Speaker to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, 2025, in which he will find on this particular issue of concern, the same question, that a bill adopted “cannot be revived in the same session.” Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of debate today, numerous times, numerous Liberal members made reference to Bill C-2 , which was named the strong borders act when it was introduced in June. The trouble, and I will try to be succinct, is that Bill C-2 cannot be put forward for a vote. It is in violation at this moment. It would only be acceptable for it to sit on a shelf covered in dust until the government removes all the sections that have already been carried in C-12 and are identical to those still in Bill C-2. This would encompass, in Bill C-2, parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. This is because the rule in this place, known traditionally as the same question rule, prohibits any government or any member from bringing forward legislation that is substantially the same.”