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 13 of 22.
“By this agreement, which I think is already signed and in law, we have now given investment protection and the ability to go to an investor-state dispute resolution to complain if a Canadian province decides that it was a mistake to let an Indonesian multinational buy up Domtar, Resolute, Catalyst or Northern Pulp and now wishes to protect our forests, protect our forest workers and put in place more protections. I did hear the minister 's answer that this agreement does maintain that we are going to seek sustainable development, promote the environment and promote fair labour standards, but we are dealing with a country where those things are rather unknown. It is not clear to me how, in passing Bill C-18 , we will get to where we want to go.”
“The Standing Committee on Natural Resources subpoenaed the leadership of Paper Excellence to come before the committee to explain what it was doing with our pulp and paper industry and with our vast area of forest that it now controls. The entire corporation is controlled by one Indonesian billionaire, Mr. Wijaya, who refused to come before the committee and sent some representatives. The company, on paper, is registered in Vancouver, but again, there is no transparency. It is not listed on any stock exchange. It is the sole property of one individual billionaire.”
“I speak, of course, of the fact, which is astonishing for most Canadians, that the largest of our pulp and paper enterprises across Canada is a company that is basically controlled in Indonesia. It is called Paper Excellence. It started by buying Northern Pulp in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, and over the years, it then absorbed Domtar, Resolute and Catalyst. It controls a vast amount of Canadian forest, and it runs pulp and paper mills across Canada. By this agreement, we would now be giving the same thing I mentioned earlier in the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which would mean that the Government of Indonesia can complain and go to arbitration if we change our rules or laws and it affects their investments. This is a very strange situation.”
“According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, it has, for years, marked Indonesia down as a flawed democracy. There are many issues, such as were already raised by my friend and colleague from the Bloc Québécois, around human rights within Indonesia and with the fraying of that relationship within a real democracy where the people really decide what the policies are and really control their government. There are many democracies around the world where people may think that may not be the case. In any case, Indonesia still, on paper, is a democracy. However, when we look at this agreement, and I do want to focus on one specific area and one specific company, we have had a lot of trade with Indonesia already. I question whether it has been to our benefit and whether we should not have reviewed some of these trade arrangements more closely.”
“It is very much the case that the Green Party agrees with the goals of the current government, that we need trade diversification. However, we would prefer far more effort to ensure that those agreements we make are with strong democracies that share our values. I can now quote her in this place because she is no longer a member, but former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland put it this way: “Democracies should depend on democracies, not dictators.” Even in times when we need more trade agreements, more trade diversification and less reliance on the United States, no question, we should look at, excuse the expression, whom we are climbing into bed with on these issues. (1625) I am concerned about the fact that while it is true Indonesia is a democracy, it may be a democracy in name only.”
“It allows for, to this day, secret hearings if the People's Republic of China objects to any change in a regulation or rule by a local government, provincial government or whatever. We can then be sued for whatever amount by the politburo of the People's Republic of China because so many of their enterprises are state-owned. In any case, the FIPA with China never came before Parliament. Each federal government has the option of concluding any treaty with a foreign power either through cabinet alone or through bringing it to Parliament for a vote. In this case, I am afraid that this is probably already a legally binding treaty with Indonesia before we discussed it here, and this is the implementation act to bring it forward.”
“One was the time former prime minister Jean Chrétien felt that it was really important for Canada's Parliament, as a whole, to debate and vote on the Kyoto protocol back in 1997, the first of many legally binding climate negotiations that were concluded. Another example was when former prime minister Stephen Harper decided the Canadian Parliament did not need to debate or vote on a very dangerous agreement, which, in the end, was concluded by only a vote in cabinet, by an order in council. That relates to what I am going to continue to speak about here today. It was the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement, or FIPA, which never was debated in Parliament but was only carried through the Governor in Council.”
“They can choose to bring a treaty to Parliament for a debate and a vote, or it can be passed solely in cabinet by Governor in Council. In this case, the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Canada and Indonesia was signed before it ever came to Parliament. We are now debating and considering an act to implement the comprehensive economic partnership agreement. It is kind of a hybrid here. In the past, we have had many treaties where a prime minister has decided it is so important that we are going to debate it on the floor of the House of Commons and let Parliament vote on it. Let me contrast two with which I am very familiar.”
“We are aware of the difficult time being faced right now by local governments and communities, including naval officials who are still stuck due to the landslides. It is a horrific event. That brings me to the question I was going to ask the minister . I think I will start by prefacing my speech with this question. We have before us a bill that would appear to be an opportunity for the House of Commons to either agree and ratify a treaty or not. As a matter of law, this treaty likely was considered by both Canada and Indonesia to have come into force when the Prime Minister and the leadership in Indonesia signed the agreement back in September 2025. I think this is somewhat pro forma, which is troubling. In Canada, which a lot of Canadians would not know, each government, each executive, the Prime Minister and cabinet, has a choice.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to begin, of course, by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I did have a question for the minister that I was unable to ask, but perhaps I can work it into my speech. I am sure many of the people watching today's debate in the Canadian House of Commons will be from Indonesia, interested in what Canadian parliamentarians think about their country and this trade agreement. Therefore, I want to start by expressing deep condolences to the people of Indonesia who, just last weekend, experienced an extreme weather event, likely due to climate change. The extreme rainfall event caused landslides. At this point, those landslides in West Java have killed at least 20 people, and there are dozens still missing.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition of deep concern to many constituents. As Canadians from coast to coast know, we have a housing crisis. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to expedite and focus on immediate help for people who cannot afford to get a roof over their head, particularly by getting rid of real estate investment trusts and corporate ownership of housing units as investment properties. They also call on the government to focus on more support for co-op housing and other forms of more accessible shared housing arrangements.”
“Mr. Speaker, with massive cuts being made to our civil service, how can the government justify threats to public health and safety as outlined today by the Public Service Alliance of Canada? Specifically in my community, we are very concerned because across a number of departments, believe it or not, workers involved in marine emergency responses to oil spills have all been laid off. How does the government justify this?”
“Madam Speaker, the history of environmental assessments in this country is one in which we had a predictable, comprehensive environmental review of projects in federal jurisdictions from about the mid-seventies until 2012, when Stephen Harper repealed the Environmental Assessment Act that had been put in place under Brian Mulroney. Since then, we have had a very discretionary projects-based review. I voted against Bill C-69 because, although the Alberta premier at the time called it the anti-pipeline act, I said it could just as easily be called the pro-pipeline act as it uses such heavy reliance on ministerial discretion as opposed to what we used to have, which was criteria-based and predictable. If federal monies, federal lands or federal permits were to be used, we would do an assessment. I think we still have problems in this area.”
“Mr. Speaker, just to clarify my comments, I was not relying on the Prime Minister 's verbal comments. They are still found on page 348 of the federal budget, as they did not use disappearing ink. It actually does say that there will not be investment tax credits available for enhanced oil recovery, and that was contradicted 10 days later in the MOU with Alberta.”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that we are debating something today on supply that is titled as something for economic sovereignty. I am concerned about the growing movement toward separatism within Alberta. I am wondering if the member, as an Alberta MP, has noted whether the leader of the official opposition , as a fellow Alberta MP, has chosen a lane. What can we all do, as members of Parliament who have sworn an oath in this place, to defend our country, to be loyal to Canada and to provide an alternative and an effective way of ensuring that any Alberta vote is not contaminated with foreign interference?”
“Madam Speaker, it is good to see my hon. friend from Lakeland back in this place and well. We were deeply concerned when she was in hospital during the time of the budget debate. I apologize, Madam Speaker, but it had to be said. I also want to say that she will know we agree on more things than others might imagine. However, on the offshore tanker issue, where U.S. and offshore foreign tankers pass by Canada's waters and British Columbian waters, they pass on the outside, because that is the direct route from Alaska to Washington state. They do not come in through the inside passages that are covered by Bill C-48 . I wonder if we can agree that we should probably stick to the facts of the geography and the waters where tankers move and where they do not.”
“As well, petitioners remind us that in 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence made an all-party recommendation that Canada play a leadership role in NATO in encouraging work toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the petitioners ask the Government of Canada to make nuclear disarmament a foreign policy national defence priority and to engage with and accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition, which deals with the issue of the threat of nuclear war. The petitioners point out that the nuclear arms control architecture has all but disintegrated with the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Treaty on Open Skies between the United States and Russia, and that the New START Treaty negotiations are, at this point, not inspiring hope for a good conclusion. The petitioners further go on to remind us that the House of Commons and the Senate approved a motion unanimously back in 2010 to encourage Canada to engage in negotiations for the Nuclear Weapons Convention and deploy a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of nuclear disarmament.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-16 and turn to mandatory minimums, I am concerned. As someone who stood in the House repeatedly to oppose the mandatory minimums brought in during the Harper administration in, at that time, Bill C-10 , I remember going through the academic articles and the reviews by experts in criminal law. One of the things they found throughout the United States, where mandatory minimums were used widely, was that it did not deter criminal activity. It actually overcrowded jails. It was not working to deter criminal activity. Does the member know if, in doing this, it is in response to a rallying cry that is more partisan-based or whether it is evidence-based?”
“They ask the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to revise the existing criteria for tax exemption for support services for people with disabilities such that their support services provided virtually would receive the same tax treatment as such services provided in person. Right now, essentially, people with disabilities in this country face a disadvantage in seeking more available, affordable and accessible services because they are online. It is an honour to present this petition, and the petitioners look forward to the government's response.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to rise to present this petition, which was originally presented by the former member for Kitchener Centre, Mike Morrice, and brought forward by one of his constituents in the disability community. The disability community, as many members of the House will know because it is an issue that I think is completely non-partisan, wants to see people with disabilities in this country raised out of poverty. The petitioners point out that since the COVID pandemic, many services for people with disabilities have been offered online. These are more financially feasible, and certainly more affordable, accessible and flexible, yet the tax code has not caught up with this.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very concerned as well. I am glad to see Bill C-16 debated in this place after having been introduced in December. I think we need to move more quickly on legislation. We have not had a very full legislative package since the election. This is one bill I feel very strongly about. I want to say a name out loud here. She is one of the more recent victims of alleged intimate partner violence. Her former husband is awaiting trial. I want to say the name of Laura Gover, who died not long ago in Saanich. She was a mom. She was much loved in the community and a victim, we believe, of intimate partner violence.”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member has had conversations with the Minister of Justice . There are sections of Bill C-16 that Greens will support, but there are other sections that we would like amended. Does the hon. member have a sense from the government as to whether amendments will be entertained and if we could move swiftly on the parts we all agree on, such as proper sentencing, and move quickly against intimate partner violence?”
“To everyone, everybody who has been mentioned already, our wonderful interpreters, our wonderful pages, the students who deserve to have a great Christmas at home with their families, and every one of my dear friends here in this place, to every MP, please be safe this holiday season. Come back, and when we resume Parliament, let us start with a spirit of shared commitment and co-operation.”
“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Green Party and as its leader, I would like to extend my best wishes for the holiday season to everyone. [ English ] Merry Christmas, joyeux Noël and happy Hanukkah to everyone, whether or not one has a faith, and I do have a profound faith and look forward to celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. I also recognize that people of no faith and of different faiths are all bound together here in this place by our common love of country and our commitment to work for democracy, which is under threat all around the world this Christmas season.”
“Madam Speaker, I do understand, and I was watching in committee, that there was collaboration between the Bloc and the Conservative Party, but I am not unhappy that those amendments have been removed. I agree that the process should be more open and that there should be a conversation. However, I was deeply unhappy with the member for Calgary Nose Hill's amendments to restrict access to medical care for people who are in this country and are not under deportation orders. They are awaiting their fate to be decided, and they could be told that they can only get access to medical care if their life is at risk. As I understand the amendment and as I recall it from close to the midnight hour, I thought that it was really not like my country and how we treat people who are in need of medical assistance.”
“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the problem with this minority Parliament is that MPs do not have equal rights. Members of parties with fewer than 12 MPs are at a disadvantage. That was the case for the Bloc Québécois in 2011. I remember it well, because I worked with the four Bloc Québécois members at the time, and we worked well together. Today, the voices of certain federal parties are absent from the committees. I respect the work done by committees, but members who are not on committees would like to bring forward and pass important amendments, and they cannot do so in committee.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East and I are in the unenviable position of being forced, by motions passed by every committee, to produce amendments on 24 hours' notice, but to not be allowed to vote on our own amendments. Yes, I completely support what the member for Vancouver East was trying to do. It only makes sense. Why go back and say it should depend on someone's first entry into Canada as opposed to when they last came to Canada? They could be asked whether it has been a year since their last entry into Canada as opposed to since their first. Much changes with time. Governments are toppled, and human rights are suspended.”
“Madam Speaker, my answer to the hon. member's question would have been different a month ago, for instance, before the United States under President Trump adopted a new national security strategy that makes me wonder if it is safe for Canada to remain in the Five Eyes. The new national security strategy of the U.S., the so-called Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, is deeply distressing, but let us set that aside. I would say, yes, a lawful access program makes sense. We need to know when there is probable cause to decide that we need to move to access to mail or information, but that should be the process of long consultation, deeply respectful of human rights and Canadian rights, and that was not where Bill C-2 came from.”
“The appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw it completely and to not try to interfere with human rights in the guise of making Donald Trump happy. We do not have ICE in Canada raiding institutions, schools and workplaces to grab people and say they are getting shipped out of the country before they can get due process. That is not us. That is not Canada, but we move closer to that actually being who we are if Bill C-12 is passed without amendment and without accepting the amendments put forward today by the hon. member for Vancouver East and me. We need to protect human rights.”
“This does not automatically give anybody a claim to stay in Canada to be able to avail themselves of the rights that Canada signed on to in international treaties to protect refugee rights. It just says they are allowed to ask for protection and the system will decide if they are a valid refugee or not. Those opportunities have ended. The rules changed for people who have already been in Canada for a year and would have no reason to think they need to ask for refugee protection. I have put forward numerous amendments here today, as we heard the Speaker read out, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding them. These amendments, even if carried, could not remedy what is wrong with this bill.”
“Here is the the catch: Bill C-2 , and now Bill C-12 , say that, if someone has been in Canada for a year, they no longer have the right to ask for refugee protection. They no longer have the right to ask for a hearing for a fair assessment of their case. I will just explain why it could be that someone who has been in Canada for a year has not yet asked for refugee status. Let us say someone came to Canada on a valid work permit or a valid student visa. They had no reason to imagine they were not going to be able to continue their studies or continue their work. The situation in their home country could have changed, the government shifted and they suddenly knew that, if they returned, they would be jailed. Their previous activities or their exercising of free speech would put them in jeopardy.”
“I had hoped to have a chance to speak on December 10, on Human Rights Day, to talk about international human rights. Ironically, I am because I am presenting amendments to Bill C-12 . Otherwise, Human Rights Day would go by unobserved in this place. We observe it by pushing through a piece of legislation that violates international human rights. What about this bill makes it offensive? As I mentioned before, the so-called lawful access pieces, going into Canadians' mail and accessing Internet service provider information, have yet to come forward in a stripped-down version of what was put forward in June in Bill C-2 . We will get that back again. Meanwhile, Bill C-12 takes away the rights of people who would ordinarily have the rights of refugees to come to Canada and say they need to claim refugee protection.”
“Bill C-12 will go through, and then we will get Bill C-2 back, but without the sections we have passed in Bill C-12. I hope members are following me in this attempt to explain what the government is doing. Bill C-2 attracted widespread public opposition, so it was a bait and switch. We are replacing Bill C-2. We have Bill C-12 . The provisions of Bill C-12 remain offensive to the same groups that say nothing has changed since the original Bill C-2. This process is still about pleasing Donald Trump. Bill C-2 had a catchy title: the strong borders act. Bill C-12 has a less catchy title: strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. They are pretty much the same animal. We will get Bill C-2 back, but with the sections that have been passed in Bill C-12 removed. What is offensive about all this?”
“In October 2025, the government brought forward the bill that is before us today, Bill C-12 , which contains as many offensive elements toward the rights of refugees and violations of human rights law internationally as the original bill, Bill C-2 . The Liberals sort of did a bait and switch. The Liberals withdrew the parts about being able to open our mail and have access to our data from Internet service providers. Those are not in Bill C-12, but the surprise is that they remain in Bill C-2. Bill C-2 remains on the Order Paper. We have been informed more recently that, once Bill C-12 passes, the government will bring back Bill C-2, having removed the sections that they expect us to pass it quickly, and it will probably pass quickly because that is how things go around here.”
“A broad range of organizations said that Bill C-2 should not pass, that it was appalling. I will quote the executive director of OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, who happens to be one of my constituents. He said that Bill C-2 was all about one thing, which was “pleasing President Trump”. Bill C-2 was a target. I know many of us as MPs received so many letters from constituents saying we have to stop Bill C-2 . I thought we had won a victory when it was reported in the media that the Liberal government was going to withdraw Bill C-2 and replace it with something that was not odious. I have had the great honour of serving in this place since 2011, but I have never seen a shell game as gross as this.”
“I have never seen such quick work by as broad a range of civil society organizations, and I have seen lots of opposition. (1610) [ Translation ] There is a huge coalition of more than 300 NGOs that are completely opposed to Bill C‑2 because of the human rights violations, because of the interference with and violation of privacy rights, which the member for Kamloops talked about. One example is allowing Canada Post employees to open personal mail. [ English ] I will just briefly list some of the organizations to give a sense of the breadth and depth of concern. There was OpenMedia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the United Church of Canada, the Muslim legal rights association, Women's Shelters Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International.”
“I was not able to vote against it, as I would have wished to have done, but it was agreed that it would be passed on division by the recognized parties, which means that the Greens and the NDP MPs in this place could not register opposition to Bill C-15 , the mother of all budgetary omnibus bills, at over 600 pages long. Never mind that. Right now we are talking about my amendments, and those of others, to Bill C-12 . Let me start briefly by sharing the path this bill took, as the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola has done in brief. Back in June of 2025, as the numbers indicate, Bill C-2 was one of the very first bills put forward by the new administration under the Liberal Party in a minority Parliament. It did not take long for Bill C-2 to attract attention.”
“I want to give the people who are watching these speeches right now some more context. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . We may disagree on some of the points, particularly those on refugee protections, but I agree and want to associate myself with his very elegant preamble on what is wrong with omnibus bills, how many things are stuffed into the bill we have before us and whether it is appropriate to do that. I agree with him that it is not. It is true that the Liberals used to make comments about the horrible Conservative omnibus budget bills. We have an omnibus budget bill before us today that passed on division, which, by the way, coincidentally means that members of Parliament were not able to register personal votes.”
“Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I was pleased to rise today. December 10 is coincidentally Human Rights Day, and I stand here at the point of report stage on Bill C-12 , which threatens to actually violate international human rights law. I will go into why I believe that to be the case and why I am offering amendments at this late stage. I want to extend my deep appreciation to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding my amendments. She also worked hard to put amendments forward during clause by clause at the national security committee, where we met. A number of other members of this place continued to try to make amendments, some of which I agreed with, others of which I did not, until midnight, when we were cut off from trying to make amendments, but we tried.”
“seconded by the member for Vancouver East , moved: Motions Nos. 49 to 51 Motion No. 49 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 73. Motion No. 50 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 74. Motion No. 51 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 75.”
“35 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 60. Motion No. 36 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 61. Motion No. 37 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 62. Motion No. 38 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 39 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 64. Motion No. 40 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 65. Motion No. 41 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 66. Motion No. 42 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 67. Motion No. 43 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 68. Motion No. 44 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 69. Motion No. 45 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 70. Motion No. 46 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 71. Motion No. 47 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 72.”
“seconded by the member for Vancouver East , moved: Motions Nos. 23 to 47 Motion No. 23 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 48. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 49. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 50. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 51. Motion No. 27 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 52. Motion No. 28 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 53. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 54. Motion No. 30 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 55. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 56. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 57. Motion No. 33 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 58. Motion No. 34 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 59. Motion No.”
“14 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 40. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 41. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 42. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 43. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 44. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 45. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 46. Motion No. 21 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 47.”
“seconded by the member for Vancouver East , moved: Motions Nos. 2 to 21 Motion No. 2 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 28. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 29. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 30. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 31. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 32. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 33. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 34. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 35. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 36. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 37. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 38. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 39. Motion No.”
“I will abbreviate the petitioners' concerns, but they are deep and command our attention: that we should follow the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence recommendations from 2018; that we should, as the Parliament of Canada, urge the Government of Canada to make nuclear disarmament a foreign policy and national defence priority for the security of the globe; that Canada should assume a leadership position within NATO to work for nuclear disarmament; and that Canada should, with haste, join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW, to negotiate, on an urgent basis, new legally binding treaties to achieve the ultimate goal, which is the complete elimination of the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year, the 80th anniversary of the falling of the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the fact that work towards nuclear disarmament has slowed and is sputtering to a halt. The petitioners note that the arms control architecture has all but disintegrated with the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that was in place with Iran, with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty between the U.S. and Russia, and with grim prospects for the renewal of the New START Treaty in 2026.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am troubled that UNDRIP was excluded from reference in Bill C-5 , when the government said that laws can be broken to build things faster. I am very troubled that the MOU does not reference UNDRIP to say, in clear language, that we will respect free, prior and informed consent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to compress this to something short for my hon. friend from Humber River—Black Creek. The memorandum of understanding speaks of a bitumen pipeline. I am wondering if the government has considered that if the goal is really to ship bitumen to the port of Vancouver, or other ports, to take it to Asia, the safest way to ship that is with existing infrastructure on trains to container ships.”
“Mr. Speaker, one section of the enormous Bill C-15 , in the over 600 pages of an omnibus budget bill, has not yet been even mentioned in this place and was not mentioned in the budget either. The idea that the budget implementation act just implements things in the budget is belied by pages 301 to 304, which would exempt the application of Canadian law to any entity, which could be people or corporations, at the discretion of the minister, with no public oversight. Can anyone here, particularly the Minister of Finance , explain this?”