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 12 of 22.
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North will know that I am pretty fair-minded. If the Conservatives are filibustering, I would love to join him in denouncing that, but I do not see any sign of the Conservatives' filibustering, particularly on Bill C-2 , which came forward for first reading on June 5. The Liberals then put it up for debate on June 18, September 16 and September 17, and we have not seen it since, largely because huge portions of it were put into Bill C-12 . I do not see any signs of the Conservatives' stopping Bill C-12, since it went through on December 11 by unanimous consent. I asked to be registered as in opposition. In fairness, could my hon. colleague point out any episode that I could not find online, in the committee hearings or in the House of filibustering by the Conservatives on Bill C-2 ?”
“Opposition members do not do so, and I will not vote for Bill C-2 as it currently stands. I am wondering how they can bring forward Bill C-2 since vast portions of it, verbatim, have already been passed in Bill C-12 , and it would violate our rules to bring forward the same motions twice in one session.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. parliamentary secretary, and she is an honourable member. I am opposed to Bill C-2 , and I understand that she put it forward again in the House today as though there has been some delay on the part of opposition members. I want to ask her if she can explain the quite unusual procedure where Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act, was put forth in June after more than 300 groups from civil society formed a coalition to stop it, groups from migrant workers' rights organizations to civil liberties unions, the United Church of Canada and so on. Then the government brought in a vastly similar bill, Bill C-12 , and now we are asked about Bill C-2, which has not even gone through second reading. The government controls when bills are put forward for votes.”
“If it means what the government has its Treasury Board Secretariat say in committee, it ought to have drafted it to say so.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to watch the clock carefully, because I cannot possibly take apart even the so-called conditions that are found in proposed paragraphs 12(3)(a) through 12(3)(e) at page 301 of the bill. They are highly discretionary. The bill would do no such thing as create guardrails; it may create small children waving by the side of the road. It is not a piece of legislation that is well drafted, nor are any of these terms defined, including “public interest” and “regulatory sandbox”. The minister would be allowed to work within their own discretion. Furthermore, the transparency could be as much as a year after the exemption has been granted saying that a federal law does not have to be obeyed. I would prefer better drafting. I urge the government to amend Bill C-15 .”
“The witnesses put forward that there were “misconceptions in the public domain”, and they wanted to explain all that because what they said to the committee was that regulatory sandboxes are a “well-established governmental tool” to allow the testing of innovative products. Where does this well-established governmental tool come from and where is it defined? Even after going back to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act, Bill C-15 does not include any definition of “regulatory sandbox”—”
“The defence of this provision first started with the response by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance , who answered and said that because “Canada has world-class innovators and entrepreneurs,” we need to build the strongest economy and “we are reducing red tape”, because division 5 of Bill C-15 is to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act. The hon. parliamentary secretary continued, “As part of this process, we are reducing red tape to broaden the use of something called regulatory sandboxes to help foster and spur research...and innovation.” Since that time, the concept of regulatory sandboxes has been expanded upon by the witnesses from the Treasury Board before the committee.”
“Since the time that people have become alarmed about this, there has been testimony before committee. Because, as we just did, we passed Bill C-15 on division at second reading, we did not have a recorded vote, which is why I have not been able to state on the record that I cannot possibly vote for the budget implementation act as currently drafted with the sections found in division 5. Since then, because it did pass on division at second reading, it has gone to the finance committee and other committees for study. I found it interesting, in going over the witnesses put forward, the ways in which the Liberals are trying to justify this extraordinary power grab by individual ministers to exempt any entity from the operation of any Canadian law except for the Criminal Code.”
“I also believe that since the bill was put up for first reading on November 18, there is no sign of delay since the House, by unanimous consent with my objection, adjourned a day early on December 11. We have only been back a little while, and 600 pages plus changing 20 different laws takes some time. I maintain, as I did on December 9, that the most egregious section of the bill is the one that says that a minister can, on personal discretion, deciding it is in the public interest, exempt the application of any Canadian law, except the Criminal Code, from application within their area of jurisdiction and that they will make this public not immediately, not soon, but according to the act, as soon as it is feasible, with no time limit on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the late show has never come so early. I am rising tonight to raise an issue that I initially put before the House on December 9, 2025. I am rather proud of the fact that I seem to have been the first member of Parliament to have put this on the public record. Hopefully people noticed, and yes, there is a growing coalition who wants to raise awareness of the issue I first raised here on December 9. It is division 5 within the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-15 , which, at over 600 pages, takes a while to read, get through and study. I want to categorically put it on the record right now that I see no sign that the Conservatives are filibustering Bill C-15 , the omnibus budget bill. It takes a while to study a budget implementation act of over 600 pages.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned with irresponsible practices from industry and large multinational corporations that have led to the destruction and denigration of much of Canada's waterways and wetlands. They are also concerned for the sustainability of our groundwater. They are calling on the House of Commons to update Canada's water laws and ensure that no industry or corporation's profit line can take priority over the health of our waterways. They want to ensure that there are specialists and experts guiding the Parliament of Canada to protect our water.”
“Mr. Speaker, members of this place who are in unrecognized parties get a 35-second opportunity once a week. I take members at their word. I wonder if it would not be appropriate, as we do for each other all the time, to ask for unanimous consent for the member for Nunavut to ask her question again.”
“The rule is that only the Speaker recognizes individual members of Parliament, but the practice has been, just as the practice has been to allow written speeches, against our rules, which gives party whips more power over decorum than the Speaker.”
“Madam Speaker, I am passionate about the Standing Orders. We do not get nearly enough time to speak about them. As the Green Party member, I do not have an opportunity to participate in PROC to pursue these essential changes. I want to make a point to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I think things would work better in this place if we were to actually observe the rules we currently have. For instance, members are not supposed to read written speeches. We could shorten the time on debates if the only members who could speak would be, as in the Parliament in the U.K., able to speak without notes. I also think we would improve our rules a great deal and have better decorum in the House if party whips were not able to have more power over the Speaker. That is not a rule.”
“I thought the member for Calgary Crowfoot made very cogent arguments, and I also appreciated his suggestion that we look at the U.K. Parliament and the idea that an MP who is speaking can yield the floor to another MP of their own party. I want to associate myself very strongly with the comments just now from the member for Lanark—Frontenac and support his concerns. For anyone watching this who does not know the member for Lanark—Frontenac, they will not find a finer person of greater integrity. What he went through with the Tay Valley Township council is appalling, and I want to thank him for always being upright, honest and so well informed.”
“Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had today to rise to speak to the Standing Orders. If I can, before asking a question of the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac , I want to associate myself with some of the comments made by the member for Calgary Crowfoot . I strongly agree with his argument that five standing members should be able to ensure a recorded vote and that passing bills on division gives an extreme level of power and authority to a small group of parties in this place, only the recognized parties. It reduces the rights of not just me as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but of my constituents, who do not necessarily know where we stand on the issues when we move so quickly.”
“I should mention that this was an e-petition signed by more than 4,000 people who have come to know and love this brilliant young man from Pakistan, who is a Canadian in all but citizenship. He is married to Vancouver resident Sophia Papp, who at this moment, with her entire family, is in Pakistan with her husband. The petitioners plead for Parliament and for the minister to take immediate action to reunite Sophia Papp with her husband, Zain Haq, through his admission to Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of petitioners, who requested that it be presented today, February 6, in honour of the life and work of Ghaffar Khan, who is a close friend of Mahatma Gandhi and a champion political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition and lifelong pacifism in the search to end colonial rule in India. The petitioners summarize by saying that the husband of a Canadian citizen was deported, and they plead with Parliament to ask the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to reunite Canadian citizen Sophia Papp with her husband, Zain Haq, who was deported for non-violent protest and civil disobedience for defending old-growth forests and for climate activism.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I am going to close with words from another one of Kirsty's scientist colleagues, Dr. Ian Burton, who said: It has been an honour to work in association with Kirsty Duncan through the University of Toronto and IPCC.... With her work and training in Medical Geography she made outstanding contributions to the award of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC. Her premature demise is an irreplaceable loss to the ongoing struggle against...ignorance. I will close with these words in Gaelic. I do not know how to speak Gaelic in the past tense, so I can say it only in the present tense: Kirsty, tha gaol agam ort . I love you.”
“He wrote: Kirsty Duncan was an outstanding scientist who dealt with health and environmental issues including climate change. I first met Dr. Duncan in the 1990s when she was teaching climate change at University of Windsor and I was the Assistant Deputy Minister of the atmosphere-climate part of Environment Canada. I was very impressed by her scientific knowledge and leadership.... I was so pleased when she was elected in 2008 as she provided—”
“(1240) Of course, she had an enormous joy for life, an exuberant embracing of life, and even with health challenges, she never felt sorry for herself. My God, what a hero she was. For the spirit of life, if there was ever someone for whom we could sing this at their funeral, and in my heart I am thinking of this, it would be her: “I am the Lord of the Dance, said he.” She had that spirit of dance, and Kirsty had pride, joy and love for her little students. Even as an MP, she kept teaching students in Highland dance, and it meant the world to her. I am quite incoherent and overwhelmed, but I wrote to a few of her scientist colleagues because I thought it would be good in this place to have the words of scientists who worked with her. I am first going to share what was said by one of Canada's leading scientists, Dr. Gordon McBean.”
“It was really a medical detective story that she led. She accomplished so very much. I want to canvass what her family put in the obituary, the number of things they felt she would want to be remembered for and that she was passionate about: dance, music, art, sport, science and research and, of course, politics, as well as humanitarian causes that were also courageously championed by her husband, Sven. Again, thanks to the member for Calgary Nose Hill for paying tribute to the extent that Kirsty's work on young women in sport who were victimized and sexually harassed was not swept under the carpet. All of that makes for a person about whom someone could not say, even in summary fashion, what they gave the world.”
“member for Calgary Nose Hill , who already touched on some of the things I was going to say about Kirsty's work and her authorship of the book about the hunt for the 1918 flu virus. An extraordinary degree of intellectual curiosity led Kirsty, alone or almost alone among scientists, to wonder, now that we are experiencing climate change and some corpses in various places are thawing, if we could find a victim of the Spanish flu who had been completely frozen but from whom now, because of global warming, we could perhaps access tissue. We could perhaps find out more about the origins of the Spanish flu. It has been referenced, but it was an extraordinary effort of will to launch a global expedition to Spitsbergen, Norway, to get the help of the Norwegian government, to engage other scientists and to say this could matter.”
“I knew Kirsty initially through her work at Environment Canada. An odd coincidence was that for a brief period of time, my daughter was in child care in the same building where Kirsty worked. I was inspired by the member for Calgary Nose Hill and went back through some old text messages from Kirsty. I should not have done that before trying to talk. Kirsty always referred to my daughter, Cate, as “your wee bairn.” She would always say to me, through our lives, “How is your wee bairn?” I just looked back through some text messages where I had sent her pictures of my wee bairn with her wee bairn, of my daughter and granddaughter, and Kirsty had responded as one would expect: “Oh, your beautiful wee bairn.” I want to reflect, as many members have. I want to give thanks for the heartfelt speech by the hon.”
“As so many of her friends and family who have posted notices have said, we are shattered, and our hearts are broken, as I think her husband Sven said, “into a million pieces.” We think about politics and MPs who have served together, and it happened that Kirsty was elected in 2008, and I was elected in 2011. Through the grace of whatever House of Commons angels there are, I was seated right next to her. I was one seat behind her, and she was on the banquette. We were in the far corner next to the translators' booth in Centre Block; over in that corner now, here in West Block, it was me in the back row, Kirsty right in front of me and Justin Trudeau there. We would have lots of conversations. The thing that is even more remarkable is that Kirsty and I had been friends for 15 years before either of us entered politics.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today. It is a very difficult moment for me, but I want to pay tribute to my dear friend, Kirsty Duncan. [ English ] I do not think I have ever been in the House when we have had a round of speeches for a former colleague when the flag over the Peace Tower is at half-mast. Maybe we have, but it is an unusual moment. Today is the day that Kirsty's family is having a small ceremony. Her funeral is today, and as she would want, because she was so modest about all her accomplishments, it is a small, family event. However, the flag on the Peace Tower is at half-mast, as it should be.”
“Mr. Speaker, as International Development Week comes to a close, I know I and many of my colleagues in this place have met with dozens of frontline workers from development organizations who are reeling from a broken promise. During the election, the Liberals promised and the Prime Minister said that we would “not cut foreign aid” or development assistance, but the budget showed a cut of $2.7 billion. We used to be known in the world. Lester B. Pearson, when he was prime minister, set the global target for development assistance, yet here we are, falling through the cracks and not delivering. Will the minister commit to reviving the Pearson target?”
“Mr. Speaker, the petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to findings from international conservation organizations that point out that when we have marine protected areas, and Canada has committed to having 30% protected, there is a positive effect. The petition describes this as a positive spillover effect, where neighbouring fishing areas have larger populations of fish, larger sizes of individual fish and better catches. Petitioners are calling on the House to look at what Fisheries and Oceans can do to protect our fisheries, grow our fisheries through marine conservation areas and ensure the marine protected areas are expanded.”
“We have to be serious about what we want to be if we are going to be a serious economy and look at a new world order. Step one is to put Canada first. We need to stop taking Canada pension plan money to spend it in other countries, start putting Canada first and put in strategic reserves for our natural resources.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was four minutes without an answer. I asked what the deficit is now because the government has increased throwing money at big oil. I did not get an answer. I was told a number of things that are not true, including that, somehow, the memorandum of understanding with Alberta has something to do with diversifying trade in Canada. With a barrel of West Texas Intermediate selling at less than $60 a barrel, and they cannot make money out of bitumen in northern Alberta unless it is selling for $80 a barrel, there is not a market for bitumen. There is certainly not going to be carbon captured through the Pathways project because the only thing that carbon capture and storage has ever been proven to capture is government money all around the world.”
“The Minister of the Environment rose, but she did not give me an answer. Therefore, what is the deficit now that the Liberals have betrayed the promise on enhanced oil recovery?”
“Of all the parties in the last federal election, we submitted more proposals to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for review than any other party. We provided, chapter and verse, how the government could bring in more revenue and pay down the deficit faster without austerity, without cuts, without depriving our social safety net of the resources it needs to expand and to provide for the needs of Canadians. These studies are still on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's website, should anyone want to check out how much money we would have raised with a financial transaction tax, how much money we would raise with a wealth tax, or how much we could get if we put Canada first and stopped allowing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to take Canada pension plan money and invest it in other countries. I did not get an answer that day.”
“I made the point in my question that some might call it a flip-flop, but a flip-flop is a sandal. This is a betrayal, because in the agreement with Danielle Smith of Alberta, the Government of Canada committed to provide exactly the subsidy it said it would not provide on page 348 of the budget. My question was a financial question. We already had quite a stunning bottom-line number in this budget for the extent of the deficit, a $78-billion deficit, but when we throw more money at subsidies, what we do is increase our deficit because we add to what the government is spending more than to what it receives. The Green Party has a very good record on the subject of deficits and trying to strike balance.”
“Therefore, enhanced oil recovery is not about carbon capture and storage; it is about increasing oil production. Back when the budget was being drafted and before it was tabled on November 4, a clear case was made to the government not to add a new fossil fuel subsidy and to make it very clear. It is still there. The government did not use disappearing ink. It still says, at page 348 in the English version of the budget, that enhanced oil recovery is not eligible for investment tax credits. The reason I asked the question of the Minister of Finance back on December 4, which was ironically exactly a month after the tabling of the budget, was due to the memorandum of understanding that had been executed with the Government of Alberta on November 27, which, amazingly, said exactly the opposite of the commitment made in the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight at Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked the Minister of Finance back on December 4, 2025, about what was committed in the budget. At page 348 in the budget, it very clearly states that a component of carbon capture, utilization and storage, known as “enhanced oil recovery”, would not qualify for investment tax credits. For those who are watching and do not know what “enhanced oil recovery” is, it is basically using the fig leaf that we are somehow pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, keeping it stored and avoiding its global warming effect, which is somehow good for the climate. However, what they are really doing is using the pressure and the impact of shooting carbon dioxide under the surface to areas where the industry has not been able to access the oil that is still there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is an honour to raise this point of order when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper is in the House. I remember the level of decorum we had in those days, and I rise only because Standing Orders 14 to 16 were repeatedly violated on all sides of the House today. When Mr. Harper was prime minister, he was never once interrupted by heckling, as I recall. I hope we can go back to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is one part of this motion that I could agree with, which is point (b): that we need to boost competition. When we look at why food prices in Canada are higher, it has to do with the big, giant grocery stores having a much larger concentration of ownership in our market. I grew up in Atlantic Canada, where I belonged to a co-op. The co-op grocery stores across Canada continue to have lower food prices than the big giants: the Loblaws, the Sobeys, the Metros, so on and so forth. I want to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary if we could seize this moment to develop a real analysis of our food systems in order to bring down prices and increase nutritional value? Could we not also look at local food and stopping food waste so that people know how to cook and use food well and economically?”
“Not only could this result in health effects that are considered environmental effects, but as the petitioners are physicians, they are also calling on us to take note of the World Health Organization's warning that “climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.” The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to work, across all departments and every portfolio of federal and provincial parties, toward the elimination of emissions and the preservation of a healthy environment. They call for a nationwide carbon pricing scheme and the rapid transition toward green energy and net-zero infrastructure across Canada. The petitioners signed themselves as the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and physician mothers of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, petitioners from Saanich—Gulf Islands and elsewhere are calling on the government and Parliament to take note of the scientific warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. There are particular warnings related to what happens if we overshoot the 1.5°C global average temperature increase as against what the temperature was before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Petitioners point out that we are currently on track to significantly overshoot our 2030 Paris Agreement target.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government has recalculated the deficit numbers. We are now in favour of Bill C-19 and a GST rebate for consumers, but I am also aware that page 348 of the budget has been reversed and now enhanced oil recovery is eligible for investment tax credits. Given the additional ways that we are spending the public purse, or not collecting, what is the new deficit number compared to the $78 billion it was on November 4 of last year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will get a chance to speak to Bill C-16 . I was initially concerned that the government had created a weakening and was going back to mandatory minimums. If one does research on mandatory minimums, one finds that far from being effective at reducing crime rates, they are completely ineffective. We find that mandatory minimums increase disproportionate treatment within prisons. It is one of the reasons the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended we get rid of them. If we look at every report from the Department of Justice or the Parliamentary Centre, they find that mandatory minimums do not work, so I am worried about Bill C-16 . I am going to close here and ask if the hon. member has looked at the research that says mandatory minimums are simply ineffective.”
“There are many places we need to work, and Bill C-16 would deal with some of them in terms of fighting coercive control and doing more in a preventative fashion. I just ask my friends across the way, including those on the government benches who brought forward the legislation, to look at the evidence before assuming mandatory minimum penalties work.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague raised the case, and I raised it earlier in the debate on Bill C-16 because it is so fresh in our minds: Laura Gover was murdered on January 5. It is a very recent case. We operate under the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but her former partner is under arrest and charged with the murder. It certainly appears to be a case of intimate partner violence, in fact a murder, that took the life of Laura Gover, a much-loved mother and educator. I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for raising this case. I part company with him at that point just to ask whether he has looked at the vast literature and research that show that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They do not deter crime. They do not deter violent crime.”
“Summarizing the rest of the concerns of the petition, petitioners ask that the Government of Canada end all such subsidies to fossil fuels; invest in clean and renewable energy and infrastructure, including an improved and modernized cross-province electricity grid, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples through UNDRIP; and impose a windfall tax on excess profits of the oil and gas industry.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of many residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and beyond Saanich—Gulf Islands. They are concerned that while the Government of Canada has recognized that we are in a climate crisis, and though Canadians continue to support and call for climate action, Canada is continuing to spend, the petitioners note, at least $4.8 billion a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including loans and tax credits. They note that the oil and gas industry continues to make record profits, while Canadians continue to struggle with the rising cost of living.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Wellington—Halton Hills-North mentioned Bill C-4 . It passed this place quickly. I am very concerned about part 4 of Bill C-4, which would change the Elections Act to eliminate any privacy protections for Canadians. I wonder if he has any thoughts on whether we can still stop it in the Senate.”
“Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my esteemed colleague. We are a people who have ignored the child labour situation around the world. The position of Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, which ensures worker protection and children's rights in global manufacturing and trade, is still vacant today. We need to do more.”
“Madam Speaker, we favour trade, particularly fair trade, rooted in Canadian values that prioritizes Canadian-owned businesses and enterprises, and a Canada-first policy that helps get our products first sold across interprovincial barriers and exported to the world. We need to link arms with other democracies that defend human rights.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, I am deeply concerned if we jettison human rights in an effort to get trade deals. There is a price we pay. I do think we need strengthened diplomatic relationships with the People's Republic of China, but I do not forget what happened to the two Michaels, and I do not forget where we stand for the Uyghurs, other human rights, the people of Tibet and more.”
“In terms of the promised new day and how much this is going to deliver for Canadians, the estimate is that this will increase Canada's GDP by 2040 by 0.012%. Again, we do want to diversify trade, but we do want to be careful. I look forward to the bill going to committee at second reading, where we can pursue some of these questions.”