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 14 of 22.
“Madam Speaker, I am wondering if Conservatives who have been debating this motion today remember the Conservative Party platform from 2011, which would have prohibited any pipeline to the northern B.C. coast to ship any diluted bitumen to China. The Conservative Party policy at that time was that we should not ship diluted bitumen to any country with lower environmental standards for our refineries. I am just wondering if anyone remembers that.”
“Madam Speaker, I will say briefly to the minister that she must have been aware that in the budget, on page 348, there is a commitment to no fossil fuel subsidies for “enhanced oil recovery”. Was the minister consulted before that was reversed in the MOU? I sure was not.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. parliamentary secretary. I know he has a personal depth of concern on climate, which is welcome in this place. However, the harsh reality is that, to quote Greta Thunberg, net zero by 2050 is a fraud. The only thing we do with net zero by 2050 is ignore the immediate need to cut emissions quickly and globally. We have cut our emissions very slightly in this country, but the tools that the government was using in the previous cabinet under a different prime minister have been eliminated, and nothing has been put in its place. We are now at 8.5% below our 2005 level of emissions, which is woefully inadequate if we are to get to 35% below by the year 2035. In my 10 seconds that remain, I will plead with everyone in the Liberal caucus: It is time to be serious.”
“Of all the G7 countries, we are the only country that has such a high level. Emissions have grown more rapidly in Canada since 1990 than in any other G7 country. Our emissions are far above our 1990 levels, whereas all the countries in the European Union, as a block, are 40% below their 1990 levels of emissions. We can look at some of the other countries around the world, smaller developing countries such as Costa Rica, that have done an enormous amount to reduce emissions. Canada does not look good compared to many countries around the world. When we look at our budget and recognize that a budget is the single most important environmental statement made by a government, this budget, unfortunately, despite promises on the floor of this place, has come in at an F, and we are failing.”
“As someone who has worked on climate issues for quite a long time, it is important that every member of Parliament understand that, what we committed to as a country in the Paris Agreement, which is a legally binding commitment, is to stay as far below 2°C as possible. Now that becomes impossible if we focus on something not in the Paris Agreement, which is this notion of a deadline in the year 2050 of being at net zero. It is very clear from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that we must rapidly reduce emissions by 2030, or 2035 at the latest, to have any hope of staying below 2°C at all, much less as far below 2°C as possible. It is also the case that when the hon. leader of the government in the House asked me to compare our record to any other country around the world, we compare very poorly.”
“In the first few days after it was tabled, there were changes made that I thought would move us closer to consensus. The answer from the hon. leader of the government in the House , who also happens to be Minister of Transport, is what I wanted to take up further this evening. In his response, he said that the government was making historical investments in climate competitiveness and that it would get Canada to net zero by 2050. He said, “compare us to any country around the world”. He said it is a historic effort and historic budget. We have heard the platitudes. In the time I have tonight, I just want to make a couple of quick points. Other than the aforementioned betrayal on the budget from page 348, which was reversed in the MOU with Alberta, there is a lot of misunderstanding about this notion of net zero by 2050.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing a question I originally asked on November 5. The budget was tabled November 4, and I asked the Liberals if they were prepared to consider amendments or changes to the budget. As we know, they did change the budget, but not in any normal way that we have seen in the past. I will get back to the question and the matter that I hope to take up tonight. Just to recap, on November 4, the budget included, on page 348, a commitment that fossil fuel subsidies would not be available for something called “enhanced oil recovery”. That was a part of the budget I actually liked and did not want changed, but within 10 days, it was reversed in agreement with Madam Smith of Alberta, and they are now available. It was not what I was trying to get to in my question to the government about changing a budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was not certain we would get to petitions today, so I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are very concerned, as we all should be, about the ongoing opioid crisis. We know that where we have seen success, it is in recognizing that this is a health crisis and not a crisis under criminal law, and that we need to do far more to ensure that the services are there. We hear from all sides on this. In particular, these petitioners ask us to cease incarceration for those who suffer from a medical condition and focus on the rehabilitation of people, to bring them back into society with better treatment programs that are run as part of our public health care system.”
“The Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals decide when our constituents get to see how we would vote on a bill. Now we do not even get to do that. I ask my hon. colleague to give us a chance to debate these bills in this place, in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to make this comment to my friend, the secretary. We are debating much in this place, but I am the lone representative of the Green Party and I was the lone representative of the Green Party in 2011. This current session of Parliament represents the time that I have felt the least respect, had the least opportunity to participate and seen the most anti-democratic measures to push things through. In the case of Bill C-9 , I did not get to speak to it at all before it went to a vote at second reading, and the vote at second reading passed on division. There are seven New Democrat MPs and me. In the past, the old days, we had rules that said five MPs could stand and force a recorded vote. That is no longer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my question brief for my hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain. We need in this country to think about how we become a modern industrial economy, and I do not see an industrial strategy coming out of the current or previous governments. We seem to still think we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. Would the hon. member agree with me that it would be better if no natural resources were shipped out of Canada in a raw, unprocessed state. We improve productivity when we add—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was passed in Parliament 25 years ago. It is specifically requires that the investment board pay no attention to anything other than rate of return. It omits any reference to investing in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. It is time to bring the investment board act back to Parliament and amend it so, at the very minimum, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board considers what is good for the Canadian economy and for our future. I do not want my Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in ways to burn the planet for my granddaughter who has to grow up in a place that may be unlivable, but at a minimum, it should support Canadian businesses first.”
“Let us look at a recent example, a huge scandal in which mismanagement by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, virtually unreported in Canada, lost Canadians $500 million of our investment while the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on the board of Paris-based Orpea, Europe's largest long-term care facility. Look it up. It was engaged in criminal activity and embezzlement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on its board of directors; as well, it had 23% of the shares—”
“That means that it is, for example, a major investor in fossil fuel companies all around the world, in fracking in Ohio and gas fields in Texas, for example, with $22 billion of our pension plan money invested in fossil fuel investments. That is just the tip of the iceberg. In the time that I have, I cannot really shine the light on all the scandals associated with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, but I do want to reference where I have found a lot of these specific examples: research by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, and a second report by a group called Shift, which focuses on pension wealth and planet health.”
“In the 25-year history of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, its fundamental legislation has never been revisited, in contrast to the Quebec pension plan investment board. In Quebec, pension dollars are also invested by an arms-length board, but by legislation in Quebec, pension dollars have to be invested with some concern for improving the well-being of Quebeckers, in the interest of Quebec. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act does not require the board to be concerned about Canada at all. The investment board, made up of people who reside mostly outside Canada, is making decisions about investments from New York. It is concerned about getting the best return on investment.”
“minister answered by saying that the CPPIB, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “ethical” in tracking and “above-board” in making “investments all over the world, including in Canada.” He went on to say that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board “take[s] investing in Canada very, very seriously.” Well, the CPPIB does not invest much in Canada, and I think my colleagues in the House need to know this about the $92 billion of our pension money, and so do all Canadians who have investments in the Canada pension plan and who count on it for our retirement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board currently has 12% of that $92 billion invested in Canada and 47% invested in the U.S. and elsewhere all around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually tonight at Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked on October 31. The response came from the hon. Minister of Transportation , who is also the government leader in the House. It was inadequate, and that is why I pursue this very urgent matter tonight. We are supposed to have a government policy of putting Canada first. The question I put that day in question period pertained to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and its actions, and I asked why we did not put Canada first. The hon.”
“Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the change that took place between the budget being tabled and the deal being struck with Alberta. Page 348 of the budget clearly states that the tax credits do not apply to enhanced oil recovery. The memorandum of understanding with Alberta states the opposite, however. It says that enhanced oil recovery is included. Why does he think the government decided to make such a drastic change without offering any explanation?”
“Mr. Speaker, some might call it a flip-flop, but a flip-flop is a sandal, and this is a betrayal. On page 348 of the budget, it says clearly that investment tax credits will not be available for enhanced oil recovery, yet a memorandum of understanding with the Province of Alberta says it will extend federal investment tax credits to various parts of carbon capture and storage, including enhanced oil recovery. My question for the Minister of Finance is this: With this additional handout to big oil, has the government recalculated how deep the deficit will be? How much above $78 billion is it now?”
“God help us figure out how to end the hatred of women in the hearts of some men, find an end to violence and ensure the safety of those in marginalized communities in particular, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, the trans women who are increasingly at risk, indigenous women and girls, and women who are at risk simply because we are women. There is no room for hatred or violence in a civilized society, and we must embrace the compassion and forgiveness that help us help those who are consumed by hatred. It is not easy to figure out how to solve misogyny. It is horrific, but if we keep our hearts open, we make a commitment to act and we thank each other when we are unified, as we are today, we will find our way. Each one of us today must be committed, regardless of our party, to say we will not rest until violence against women ends.”
“I do not think any of us know why this persists. There is a patriarchy. There is an assumption that men are in charge. There are all kinds of assumptions, but it does not account for violent misogyny, intimate partner violence and our failure to end them. Today, we remember and we hold in our hearts Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz. [ Translation ] I would like to say one thing to the women who were murdered in the Polytechnique massacre. [ English ] We will never, ever forget them. We will not rest until the violence ends. We will do whatever it takes in this country.”
“She now serves Canada's public interest in another way, but we will never forget. [ English ] We can take up the cause again, as other women have said in this place. [ Translation ] As an activist and a feminist, our colleague, the member for Shefford , has never stopped fighting violence. Every one of us needs to do more. This is a sad and sombre moment, but it is something else, too. (1045) [ English ] This is an opportunity to say aloud the names of the women engineering students who were killed and whom we honour this day. It is important, as the member for Shefford has said, that their names are engraved on our hearts. We know, as our colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said, that these are not competing issues. They are all from one and the same fabric of hatred and violence. We do not have solutions today.”
“They would be constantly struggling, thinking about what they should have done. They did not know what the killer intended; they were sent outside. On this day particularly, I want to speak to and send love and support to our hon. Secretary of State for Nature . We had an earlier recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I spoke to her afterwards, gave her a hug and said that this must be such a tough day for her. She said, “No, December 6 is the tough day.” For what she will experience and for everyone who remembers, the anniversary dates are always searing. Two days from now, please remember to send love and prayers to all those who are the surviving family members. [ Translation ] The Secretary of State for Nature suffered. She was wounded.”
“They tell me, “My mother died on the lower east side,” or “My sister went missing,” or “My auntie went missing.” One of my close friends in the indigenous community here in Saanich—Gulf Islands said to me once, “I was left for dead in a dumpster.” She then continued the conversation as if I would not be shattered by hearing that, because it is the common experience of our indigenous women and girls, our friends, the aunties, mommies and sisters. This is a common life experience, and we act as a country as if it is not an emergency that requires immediate attention. Yes, today we remember the horrors of a killer walking into a classroom, sending the men outside. I must say, for those surviving men, what a horror. We know one took his own life afterward because how does someone get over that?”
“[ Translation ] I would also like to thank our Conservative Party colleague; our Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Shefford ; and our NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre . The message really is that it is senseless for such a thing to happen in our country. [ English ] We are a country that wants to reject violence. I know that my male colleagues in this place do not harbour a hatred of women, and I could not imagine what would unleash such hatred to kill women because they are women. We know that it happened in one specific location that we remember today, but it happens every day. As our colleague for Winnipeg Centre said, it particularly happens to indigenous women and girls. I am blessed to have so many friends across the country, but it is only my women friends who are indigenous who always have a story.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues in the House this morning. Unfortunately, I had to stay in my riding. I love my riding, but today I would have preferred to be with my colleagues in the House. We heard some very important speeches this morning. We are united, as my colleagues have already said. December 6, 1989, will forever be a tragic day. I remember it. I think everyone remembers it. We will never forget the events that took place at École Polytechnique. I want to begin by saying a big thank you to our Minister of Women and Gender Equality . (1040) [ English ] I also want to express, as others have, condolences and sympathies for her family's loss.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually today to present a petition of deep concern to constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I dare say, across the floor and in all corners of this place. Petitioners ask the House to take note of the fact that nearly five million Canadians currently lack a family physician. They ask the House to press the government and the government to work with the provinces and territories to address the worsening situation of access to family medicine practitioners.”
“Madam Speaker, I have not heard from the Conservative benches about this, and I am hoping the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South can let me know if there is a view on the part of the Conservative Party to shifting the budget to always being in the fall. I ask this because I am concerned that we will now have a perpetual panic that we cannot have a Christmas election. We are in a minority Parliament and the cry “we cannot have a Christmas election” only works if a budget is always in the fall. Does the member have any thoughts on that aspect of the Liberal government's handling of the budget?”
“Madam Speaker, this is my first chance to weigh in on Bill C-4 and I have a very important question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. It is about part 4 of this bill, which has nothing to do with affordability and changes to the Elections Act. My question for him has two parts. How is it that this is included in the Affordability Act; and why is it that, under part 4 of Bill C-4 , if the member would turn his attention to the last section of the bill, clause 49, it states, “deemed to have come into force on May 31, 2000”? These are the sections that relate to personal privacy information held by political parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today virtually. [ English ] I am honoured to present a petition from constituents and others concerned about the drastic and global decline in the population of pollinators, particularly honeybees. The petitioners ask that the government consider following the lead of the European Union in exerting the precautionary principle and removing the authorizations, which are wide in Canada and restricted elsewhere, on what are called neonicotinoid insecticides. These are based in nicotine. They are highly toxic to pollinators, among other forms of life. It is time for Canada to step up and protect our pollinators, as the petitioners ask us to do. I will await the response and share it with the petitioners when the government does respond.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is tough. It is true that it is practically impossible to honour both the commitment to the Paris Agreement and the agreement with Alberta at the same time. I will always do my best. [ English ] I will hold the Prime Minister accountable. He made a promise on the floor of the House of Commons. He does not get to duck it a week later.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister told me what I wanted to hear. What I wanted to know from the Prime Minister is that the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to about 2°C, which we committed to through the Paris Agreement, will be honoured and that this is possible. Today, in light of the agreement with Ms. Smith from Alberta, I think it is almost impossible to reconcile these two things. The Prime Minister may be able—”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle went wrong in his commentary. I hate the misuse of the English language by saying “the exact same”; it is redundant, but the the tanker ban, which I fear may be overturned as of today by the MOU, applies to areas of the northwest coast of British Columbia, and the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said it did not apply to U.S. tankers that were using “the exact same” route. That is not the case. U.S. tankers use a completely different route from that covered by the offshore tanker ban. When leaving from Alaska with oil or heading from refineries in Washington state, they are completely to the west of the British Columbia coastline. They are far west of Haida Gwaii, west of our coastline—”
“It was not until I got to page 448 of the budget implementation act that I found we would be creating yet another entity, or bureaucracy as the Conservatives would call it. There would be a Canada development investment corporation, to be created but not to be studied. Omnibus budget bills are an abomination, and bills of 400 pages are an offence to democracy and to Parliament. They can never be properly studied. They can only be pushed through with the rallying cry “If we do not pass it, we are stuck with a Christmas election”. God bless everyone.”
“Of course, we knew they would change the greenhouse gas pricing bills and remove other provisions that had to do with climate, but that was foretold. In division 42, again, there are changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that were not included in announcements or in the budget document itself. I find myself looking at the budget implementation act as separate legislation from the budget itself, as it is. I want to vote for some of what is in the budget implementation act. I like that we see the school lunch program. I like that we see a continuation of good programs, particularly for the social safety net. However, I wonder why we would not be able to properly study the creation of entirely new agencies.”
“Because this is an omnibus budget bill and because it is moving quickly, we are very unlikely to have a chance to study or properly debate this or even see these sections referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. If it can get worse, it gets worse. When I went through the budget implementation act, it was not until I got to page 536 that I found out the Liberals would not just change the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as mentioned in annex 5 but not in the printed budget itself. By the time we get to pages 536 and 537 in division 32, clauses 548 to 549, we find that they would also change the International River Improvements Act, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act.”
“I read the budget, and we were not given the full budget in the written document. We had to later get a memory stick, and it contained annex 5, which contains the legislative changes that were going to be made. Annex 5 is not in the text of the budget in the written, bound book, as we understand it, but it said there would be amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is the first time the government has proposed to eliminate the five-year termination date for equivalency and administrative agreements. There is concern about that in the environmental community. Why are we touching the Canadian Environmental Protection Act at all and the agreements that go to the question of protecting Canadians from toxic substances?”
“(1340) There is nothing wrong with a luxury sales tax on airplanes, cars or boats that Canadians buy overseas, but domestic manufacturers were being damaged by this tax, particularly in my own riding. Recreational vessels would hardly be considered a luxury item for someone who lives on the coast. In any case, that would be removed and I am glad it would be removed. However, why not focus on Canada first and have that tax apply only to luxury products that are made outside of Canada? Last, a number of things are quite disturbing to me. As members know, I voted for the budget, but there are things in the budget implementation act that were never mentioned in the budget itself. I know I cannot use props, but when speaking of the item itself in debate, there is an allowance for saying “in this book”.”
“One has to ask a question about a number of measures in the budget that we find in the budget implementation act, and I wish we had time to study the bill properly, but we will not. This question is, why have the Liberals used the mechanism of special operating agencies to bring in numerous new bureaucracies, such as the Major Projects Office and Build Canada Homes? There are a number of them, and they will never have the transparency that they would if they had been brought in properly as agencies that were properly studied individually. I am also particularly concerned that we should have built “Canada first” into this budget. I completely agree that it is a good idea to get rid of a luxury sales tax on certain products, but it should have the caveat that they are built in Canada.”
“Speaker Lamoureux pointed out, “we might reach the point where we would have only one bill” tabled at the beginning of the opening of a new Parliament, in which the government said that the bill would better the lives of Canadians, and it would contain all the legislation for the session to be passed all at once. He then said, “That would be an omnibus bill with a capital ‘O’ and a capital ‘B’”, but he went on to say that we are not there yet. I worry that we are getting there. I was informed recently by someone in government that while Bill C-15 is an omnibus budget bill to implement budget 2025, it is in fact only part one of an omnibus budget bill to implement the 2025 budget, which is to say that we could be awaiting another 600-page piece of legislation coming sometime soon.”
“However, they were never as long as this. For Canadians who do not know, the budget implementation bill runs to more than 600 pages. It took me a while to read all of it, and I have, which means it has taken me a while to discover sections I find particularly offensive. Again, this is not the budget itself. This is Bill C-15 , which was only recently brought in for consideration in this place. With all due respect to our current Speaker, I think the greatest Speaker Parliament has ever had was Lucien Lamoureux. In 1971, he said that budget implementation bills or, for that matter, omnibus bills of all kinds are a slippery slope for democracy. He was referring to omnibus bills of all kinds.”
“I would like to refer the House, to save time, to interventions I made in the 41st Parliament, in Hansard volume 146, to a point of order that was detailed on June 4, 2012, in which I pointed out the many ways in which omnibus budget bills are offensive to democracy and the ways in which, on principle, Parliament should be able to properly study all elements of legislation and not have them bound together. Particularly when saying it is all about the budget, one must at least make sure the budget itself mentions that this change is coming. There are a number of places in which that is not the case. In light of my reference to historical background on this point, omnibus budget bills came into fashion in the Harper years. Justin Trudeau promised he would not bring in omnibus budget implementation acts, but then he did.”
“To all my colleagues, who just went through a nail-biter of a budget vote in which the plea was that we needed to pass the budget or we would have a Christmas election, if we always have a fall budget, we will always face that threat: If we actually consider the budget properly, study it properly and perhaps even defeat it, we will face a Christmas election. This needs to be revisited. We cannot just accept that budgets are always henceforth in the fall with this new threat. Second, on principle, I object again and again to an omnibus budget bill changing things that were scarcely mentioned in the budget itself. This is a position of principle that I have taken for many years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to say it is a pleasure for me to take the floor today to speak to Bill C-15 , but it is the opposite of a pleasure. It is reliving a nightmare. I am going to start by pointing out a few things that have been missed in the discussion of the budget and the budget implementation act. First, I want to share with colleagues something I do not think anyone has mentioned, and I wish we could do something about it, which is the decision of the Prime Minister that budgets shall henceforth only happen in the fall.”
“The petitioners ask that Canada follow the European Commission's lead, apply the precautionary principle and restrict the use of these dangerous chemicals to protect our bees and our agriculture.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are concerned with the global issue, which is also local, of the threat to our pollinators, including honeybees, which are an essential part of our food system. We know that without pollinators, agriculture would crash, yet as petitioners point out, there continue to be extreme declines in pollinator populations across North America and Europe, particularly among bees. It is no surprise that this has been linked to insecticides that are particularly toxic to bees. The particular class of insecticides that the European Union has taken action to control but Canada has not are the ones called neonics, which is a short form; they are nicotine-based insecticides, neonicotinoid insecticides.”
“I just want to say to my extraordinary friend that before he decides to leave the House, there is still a chance for him to add one more thing to his extraordinary record: becoming a member of the Green Party. I hope he will keep his options open.”
“He is the dean, a respected member and someone who is always here to work hard for the people of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak. I am very happy that we are taking the time to pay tribute to him because he is an extraordinary person. I hope we will have opportunities to meet like this more often to pay tribute to an extraordinary individual. I want to mention another one of his accomplishments. When he took the Speaker's chair in his role of presiding over the election of the Speaker, he always maintained order without having to raise his voice because he kept the situation calm and clear leaving no room for misbehaviour by the members. I think that is thanks to the strength of his character.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise on this occasion to pay tribute to our dean, my dear friend. In 2011, when I was elected, we formed a very small team. People here may not be aware of that. At the time, I was the only Green Party MP, which comes as no surprise. However, there were only four Bloc Québécois MPs. We formed a team because five members could request a recorded division. We did things together. With his immense expertise, he helped me from time to time. I love him. We are paying tribute to him right now because he is the longest continuously serving member of Parliament. I can attest to the Leader of the Bloc Québécois 's claim that our friend is the “Céline Dion of Parliament”. He has an unparalleled record.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean is absolutely right. The fossil fuel industry and other industries are getting significant subsidies, but nothing is being done to address the concerns of the forestry sector. Why? This is unacceptable—”