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 20 of 22.
“Mr. Speaker, I will recognize the territory from which I speak today: I am at the annual general meeting of Friends of Nature, a wonderful small group in Nova Scotia on the territory of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. When I accepted the invitation, I foolishly thought we would be having an election on the fixed election date, but here we are on June 20, the last day of the very short session of the current Parliament following the election, under a new government. I know it is a new government, because I do not think this could have happened under any other government. This is called the new government's honeymoon period. I used to think, I like to think, that in honeymoon periods, acts were consensual. This is anything but consensual, but Bill C-5 is before us now for its final vote.”
“We have to just cross our fingers and hope that the government's plans are good ones, because this, as the old expression goes, is a pig in a poke or a blank cheque. That is what we are passing when the bill is forced through.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Northumberland—Clarke. We worked together in an informal rail caucus to promote the use of passenger rail. It should be linked with affordable bus transportation. Most Canadians cannot afford to get from place to place on public transit, because it is so limited. There are many great projects; I grant him that, and I would love to see them move ahead: an east-west, north-south electricity grid and an interlinked passenger rail and bus system. There are many projects in the national interest, but we do not know what they will be, and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead or we could have a nightmare, and right now, there is no way to know the difference.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for the rigorous work he did in committee, particularly by moving amendments and focusing his efforts on improving the bill. I am a sovereignist myself, but for planet Earth. I work tirelessly for our future and the future of our grandchildren, but today I am afraid. It is not yet too late for the Earth or for us here, on this planet, but it is almost too late. Time is of the essence. This bill is a threat to the climate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary, with whom I enjoy a good relationship. This legislation is an abomination, and one that will be a stain on the the reputation of the government and our Prime Minister . As a first effort to lead this country, it is a bad effort, and I am very sad to say that this legislation could have been improved if it had been studied at all, if the voices that had been silenced had been heard.”
“I deeply hope that we will see support from government members for the amendments that have been put forward at report stage from the Bloc and the Greens. We hope to see improvements.”
“The factors that are listed are not requirements, and no matter what has been said over and over again in this place about passing this bill to protect our economy, I urge the thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in this place to think twice and vote for the amendments at report stage that improve this act and reduce the chances that it will be abused, not just in the future, but in the very near future. A section like subclause 6(1) says that in the future, we will just deem that all these decisions have been made in favour of advancing a project. We will not worry about it, because we will decide ahead of time. It will be verdict first, evidence later. This is not the way that Canadian Parliament behaves, reflects or engages in democracy in this country.”
“[ Translation ] As everyone now understands, it is an omnibus bill that will have enormous consequences. The decisions may reduce the opportunities for projects that are important to our nation. [ English ] If we end up, as often haste makes waste, pulled back into court, we will definitely see challenges. I particularly note the maiden speech of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , a Conservative who said that when projects are built in his territory, the environmental assessments help build better projects, with the time it takes to study, the time it takes to reflect and the engagement of people. Indigenous peoples, Canadians, communities, territories, provinces and local governments need to be engaged to have successful projects.”
“There are so many other options, but we have not had any chance to discuss them, nor have we had a chance to adequately review this bill. [ Translation ] I completely agree with what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech, because this is irreversible. [ English ] Once we take the step, we cannot go back without going back to Parliament and changing the law. [ Translation ] These are unprecedented powers. With the decision that they will remain in effect for five years, we have a problem. [ English ] We have a real problem of this bill creating not an opportunity to build our economy, but a potential for the expansion of powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet that we have never seen in this country before, with the least amount of debate I have ever seen on a bill.”
“[ English ] This is a moment. We have some good amendments before us at report stage to reduce the extent of unaccountability in cabinet's deciding what projects are going to be considered in this expedited process. We have an opportunity. I ask the members of the governing party to consider that this is not an electoral college. We are Parliament. We are a Westminster parliamentary democracy where each member of Parliament is to vote for how they believe their constituents would want to see them vote. If this was a question, as the government seems to want us to believe, of voting up or down on Canada's economy, there is no question that, of course, Canadian parliamentarians would want our economy to do well. Will this law take us there?”
“While the preamble to the bill says that free, prior and informed consent is important, the way the law would operate would not allow for that. That is where I am deeply concerned that we are running roughshod over things that we care about in this country, things that we have passed in our Parliament, such as support for the respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, in the bill before us, are now found inconvenient because we want to build things fast. (1340) What things? We will find out later. How fast? Who knows? What laws will we push out of the way? What indigenous rights concerns do we think will take second place? [ Translation ] What happens if they take last place? What can we do with a bill like this and with a process like the one we are seeing today in the House of Commons?”
“Yes, we have made some amendments in committee, but they do not touch on the major concerns that people have about the legislation. I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling that part 1 and part 2 will be separated, but how can we have a vote on a bill that would give unprecedented powers to a prime minister and cabinet to choose projects that would be accelerated and expedited to such an extent that they could ignore other pieces of legislation? There are experts, and I will hold up Jody Wilson-Raybould, our former minister of justice, as an example. She is not just someone who has a sharp legal mind and to whose advice we should be listening; she is also someone who spent her life following in her father's footsteps in protecting indigenous rights and understanding them.”
“[ English ] We have had a guillotine process at every stage: abbreviated debate at second reading and definitely massively abbreviated opportunity to hear witnesses, so many experts in environmental law and experts in indigenous rights and title holders. All of the aspects of the legislation that are controversial have never been properly aired or discussed. [ Translation ] The process used to pass Bill C‑5 is problematic. It is being rushed to an unprecedented degree, unlike any other time that a bill was forced through Parliament since I first had the great honour of serving as member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands . I have never seen anything like it. [ English ] It is a twofold concern I have at report stage.”
“However, what the Liberals have done has, honestly, shocked me, because I did not expect this. I really thought we would have a government that understood the need to proclaim Canadian sovereignty and protect our economy but not trample on democracy to do it. I noted that the media said that the bill “sailed through committee”. That is an interesting turn of phrase from our national public broadcaster. I support the CBC, but this kind of thing makes me think of Pierre Poilievre's points. Never mind; I support the CBC. However, the bill did not sail through committee; the bill was forced through committee. [ Translation ] It went through what we call a guillotine process.”
“What we have done here is create the impression, and certainly the Liberals are saying it over and over again, that passing Bill C-5 would be a response to Trump and that it would protect our economy, by railroading the act through, passing it, and then saying that cabinet alone can decide whether a project is in the national interest, and then its approval process would take two years. We do not know what projects are under consideration, but large projects generally take a long time to build or put in place, eight to 10 years, and five years minimum. There is massive pressure that it needs to be done now, when there is so much more we could do to protect our economy. We could create strategic reserves of Canadian natural resources. We could ensure that Canadian industries and Canadian workers are protected.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep sadness. As I see it, this debate on Bill C‑5 is a huge tragedy. [ English ] While the Liberals say they achieved the mandate in an election, we worked together, the leaders of the opposition parties, previously, with Justin Trudeau. We said we were team Canada, that we would to work together, push back on what Trump wants to do and defend Canada's economic sovereignty. However, grabbing that and claiming that Bill C-5 is a response to how Canadians and all of us in the opposition parties feel about protecting our economy from Trump and pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham. We can add an “e” to that: It is a shame.”
“Motion No. 11 moved, seconded by the member for Courtenay—Alberni: That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 13 with the following: “participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and the public and that””
“It has an impact on employment and it has a direct impact on access to health care services. It also, of course, impacts climate commitments to provide reliable public transit. The petitioners ask for the federal government to initiate a comprehensive project completion timeline for the province; report on the results of the assessment, as the federal government has already contributed substantially to the project; and work with the municipal and regional leaders to report to the public a reasonable timeline for completion.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak virtually this morning. [ English ] I am honoured to present a petition that was initially sponsored by former member of Parliament Mike Morrice. The petitioners in the Kitchener-Waterloo region note that they have been promised for more than a decade a daily two-way GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto. This promise has not been realized. The petitioners are asking the federal government and this Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to hold Ontario's provincial transit agency to account and deliver on its commitments, and assess the use of federal funding to make such a service available as quickly as possible. It is essential, as the petitioners point out. It is not just a matter of convenience to take a daily two-way train from Kitchener to Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not disputing the need for Canada to fortify defences and defence spending, but the arbitrary 2% of our GNI for NATO stands in stark contrast to another goal long forgotten: 0.7% of GNI for development assistance. Poverty and failed states fuel terrorism and warlords, and fuel wars. Now that we are investing in the war machine, will the government commit to upping our investment to wage peace in this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a tautology problem. In order to designate a project in the national interest, we have already denied indigenous people free, prior informed consent. It is the way it works. We need a time machine to make this thing work not to offend the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As to section 35 rights, the problem again is that it says there must be a consultation, but it does not use the term “meaningful” consultation.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is unlike anything I have ever seen. It is actually unprecedented. I have never seen a government grasp for quite this much power. It is truly unbelievable. [ English ] Every time a government or prime minister's office seizes more power, the next government seizes more after that. Therefore, the things that we decry today as opposition members, whether Liberals in the past now do the things that Liberals used to decry, Conservatives now will decry things that they will expand upon another time if they get—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that perhaps will shock some. Bill C-69 was an abomination. It continued the Harper process of moving to discretionary project lists instead of the tried-and-true, 40-year experience this country had with federal jurisdiction and the federal government having an obligation to review its own projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That act was working well until the spring of 2012, when Harper repealed it. When he put in place his own act, that was the act that Kinder Morgan was being reviewed under and that is what caused the delays.”
“Mr. Speaker, surely and yes indeed, we support our economy in Canada and projects in the national interest, but even with a really great goal, we need interties. As I said, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. We need to link our electricity grid east-west and north-south. Suppose we want to link eastern Manitoba with western Ontario, but we decide we really do not need to worry about all those boreal forests and indigenous rights, and we just railroad right through something. It then turns out that we have breached treaty obligations to indigenous peoples, and they have traplines throughout those boreal areas that need to be protected. The siting of electrical grids needs to be carefully considered with indigenous rights in mind.”
“However, everybody is in a hurry. No jobs are going to be saved, because we moved too fast to notice that what we are passing is an abomination. Yes, it would lead to more court cases and, yes, it would lead to more delays, but if nothing else, it would lead to an excess of power in the hands of cabinet that would never be reversed. In that, it is an abuse of Parliament itself.”
“In other words, the instruction to future decision-makers, different ministers, for different pieces of legislation is that before they look at the evidence, they have to remember they are exercising their discretion toward getting a project done, regardless of what they find out when they start studying it. This is the ultimate in leap before we look. As environmental lawyer Anna Johnston from West Coast Environmental Law said, “Bill C-5 tosses aside the notion of informed decision making, the precautionary principle and the imperatives of reconciliation, the climate crisis and democratic decision making.” When we look at a bill like this, we think that we have a parliamentary process for a reason. We have a debate at second reading, it goes to committee, we hear from witnesses, it gets studied and then we amend it.”
“I have never seen anything like this in any legislation, so forgive me, because I would rather analyze than talk about how many pieces of propaganda have been woven into this discussion. However, subclause 6(1) is so remarkable that it needs to be at least referenced quickly. From the moment cabinet decides a project is in the national interest, it says: Every determination and finding that has to be made and every opinion that has to be formed in order for an authorization to be granted in respect of a national interest project is deemed to be made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part.”
“It says in subclause 5(6) that cabinet may consider any factor cabinet thinks is relevant, including the extent to which a project can meet the factors that I guess are here for public relations benefit: (a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security; (b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada; (c) have a high likelihood of successful execution; (d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and (e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change. All of that means exactly nothing, exactly zero, because it is a suggestion that cabinet may consider anything cabinet may want to consider. Cabinet members may want to consider some of these things, but they do not have to, and that is a question of just considering them.”
“I am sure unintentionally, but many members in this place have stood up and said not to worry because a project must meet all these factors, so it is certainly going to be a good project. The factors listed in subclause 5(6) are good factors, and if they were requirements before a project was listed in the national interest, I would have an entirely different view of this act.”
“One committee will study the bill, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which means that the bill, with profound implications for the environment and indigenous rights, will never be studied by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, nor by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. What part 2 says is that there would be a decision by cabinet about what project qualifies as being in the national interest. There is a definition of national interest if members want to find it, but it is entirely a tautology. A national interest project means what cabinet has decided is a national interest project. Members can see what would lead to the decision that it is a national interest project.”
“Part 1 was getting a lot less attention, so I wanted to stress the Canadian Cancer Society's concerns. Again, part 1 and part 2 should have been split. They do not have enough in common to be treated as a single bill. I appreciate the Bloc Québécois's efforts to get these two quite separate bills decoupled, but that will not happen, as we will be rushed to finish everything within four days. Just moments ago, it was referenced that we will have a committee study starting tomorrow afternoon for a bit and then again on Wednesday.”
“What we have in part 1 that is identified by the Canadian Cancer Society is the idea of comparable standards, which are not defined, and saying that if there are standards that are exercised at a provincial or territorial level, they could be adopted for goods that are in commerce even if they are weaker than the federal standard. The Canadian Cancer Society asks us as parliamentarians to exercise some caution and to amend the bill so there would be a carve-out for health and environmental standards so they would not be weakened. (2245) Businesses looking for profits are, of course, looking for a weaker standard if it helps them make more money. That is the way business works. It is just the reality. We do not want to put in place and incentivize a race to the bottom.”
“I was called up short when I got an email from the Canadian Cancer Society, because my initial response to reading part 1 of the bill was that I did not have to worry about it; labour mobility is a good thing and harmonizing standards is a good thing. It was not until I read the Canadian Cancer Society's memo that I remembered how getting rid of regulations in the U.K. under Margaret Thatcher led to mad cow disease, because all the red tape, all the things that seemed meaningless, actually protect health and the environment. Getting rid of regulations just to get rid of them is not very smart, as the U.K. realized during the mad cow horrors.”
“That is something we desperately need in the quest for climate action. There are things we need to do across this country to make us a truly modern, industrialized nation. Living up to the calls for justice for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission inquiry, I would say we must have safe, reliable and affordable public transportation across this country. We have lost bus service, and Via Rail is inconsistent. That is a true nation-building project; it was actually Pierre Berton's national dream kind of nation-building project. However, we do not need to start out by saying in part 1 that we know what we are doing and that we are in such a hurry that we run the risk of reducing standards that protect health and the environment.”
“The programming motion is as offensive as the bill itself, and that is actually saying quite a lot about it. I have been struggling with trying to decide which adage this bill really proves, “Haste makes waste” or “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, because both are undoubtedly true. [ Translation ] What we have here is an astounding bill that gives cabinet and the Prime Minister , and only them, the power to make decisions alone in the cabinet room, and implement their own ideas, with no mandatory criteria. [ English ] Let us look at part 1, which is the part that is getting the least attention. When I read it, I thought, “Well, labour mobility is a good thing.” I have been railing for years about the need to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers, particularly for creating an east-west, north-south electricity grid.”
“It is going to remove some of the barriers the federal government can. The next part of the bill, part 2, which is rather a separate bill and should have been dealt with separately, is an entirely different construct and unlike anything I have ever seen before in legislation. Let us try to walk through this calmly and dispassionately and urge the government to rethink the way this bill is being run through Parliament within four days. This is not defensible. The bill requires amendments; it requires study. I have heard many Liberal members in this place, including the government House leader, stand up and say they want it studied. Well, if they want it studied, they have to schedule hearings. They cannot take place in less than 24 hours and be called hearings that heard from witnesses and experts.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak at second reading to Bill C-5 , but I wish I never had to speak to the bill, because I wish I had never had to read the bill. Reading it and understanding it has been one of the most crushingly depressing experiences I have had since I was first elected to this place in 2011. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona quoted noted journalist Althia Raj saying this is the kind of bill Stephen Harper would have liked to bring forward, but he would not have had the nerve. This is an abomination, and it is not necessary in the quest for building a strong Canadian economy. It does not remove the interprovincial barriers to the extent they need to be removed, because that is not within the federal government's purview to do with the stroke of a pen. However, it says it is going to.”
“Madam Speaker, I share many of the concerns that the member has identified and highlighted. Like the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party has a lot of issues with the gag order on an omnibus bill like Bill C‑5 . My question is simple: What can we do now, in a minority Parliament, to gain the other parties' support for opposing the current effort against age-old democracy and the work of Parliament itself?”
“The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to formally and publicly declare Canada's support to include gender apartheid as a crime against humanity and international law, to advocate for the CEDAW framework, to take on gender apartheid and make specific changes in our policies to reach out to support Afghan women and girls, to collaborate with other UN member states, to sanction senior Taliban officials under Canada's Magnitsky laws and to make every possible effort to protect our sisters in Afghanistan from a cruel, misogynistic, illegal regime. Please, I urge the government to consider this petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present a petition today that is really important for women's rights. [ English ] The petitioners are particularly concerned with and focused on the gender apartheid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is depriving women and girls of fundamental rights. Girls are denied the right to learn and to go to school; these are full violations of international law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and against the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I know I am only to summarize petitions. This one is lengthy, and I will summarize it as follows.”
“Mr. Speaker, words cannot express my deep respect for the hon. member for Beaches—East York for his courage. I would like to point out to him that the Canadian Cancer Society believes that part 1 also needs to be amended and that it could lead to a race to the bottom without exemptions for health and environmental standards as interprovincial barriers are brought down. Again, Greens favour bringing down interprovincial barriers and building a one Canada economy, but not with a bulldozer pushing it through Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I remember standing in that corner when the Liberal Party was the third party in the House and its members protested so strongly against Stephen Harper starting to use time allocation on bills. It had happened, at that point, nine times in 40 years, then it began to be every bill, but nothing from the Harper government was as breathtaking as the programming motion put forward for Bill C-5 . I ask the hon. government House leader to reconsider and respect parliamentary democracy in this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation. One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum. That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5 , how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.”
“We had prepared and worshipped together with a liturgy for the blessing of solar panels. Those panels will save our parish $3,000 a year to go toward the work to help the homeless and those who need support.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present my first member's statement in this new Parliament. I will begin by thanking the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands for returning me to Parliament to work on their behalf. I want to highlight an event that happened this week, which is the reason I am participating remotely. As some may know, I am a practising Anglican and try to follow the path of Jesus Christ in my work. I am a parishioner at a little parish called St. Andrew Anglican Church in Sidney, British Columbia. This week, on Wednesday, June 11, we had the great honour of our bishop, the Right Reverend Anna Greenwood-Lee, come to St. Andrew's. She went up, believe it or not, in a cherry picker, in the bucket, to the roof of the church hall to bless the solar panels.”
“Mr. Chair, by my clock, I have now used six minutes and 40 seconds. I have seven minutes and a half. I would like to suggest that it does not violate the rules of this place to do something unusual. I have been watching my colleagues, for the fifth night in a row, sitting in one place and abiding by our rules, which the Chair is executing brilliantly. It is tough. It is short answers. People are not having time to breathe or move. As an act of charity, I would like to take my last 10 seconds to count to 10, and I urge my colleagues to stand up and stretch: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. We can now go to the brilliant member for Edmonton Strathcona.”
“Mr. Chair, would the government recognize that post-secondary education is underfunded but little discussed, and that it would be a wise investment for our economy to provide more support for universities and post-secondary?”
“Mr. Chair, I learned from our former colleague John McKay that, when he was touring Scandinavia as chair of the defence committee, he asked why Sweden had such successful high-tech and defence contractors. The Swedish government told him it was because it provided free post-secondary education and, therefore, attracted a very skilled workforce. Would the President of the Treasury Board consider advocating for free post-secondary education to enhance our capacity economically?”
“Mr. Chair, the President of the Treasury Board spoke earlier tonight of $9 billion in defence spending. Given the Prime Minister 's comments that our relationship with the U.S. as it once was is over, I would like to ask if the government has any concerns that putting billions of dollars of Canadian funds into defence systems that require going back to the United States for spare parts is a wise investment for defence.”
“Mr. Chair, I am trying to keep my question short to keep the minister a chance to answer it briefly. In 2021, another priority was to improve whistle-blower protection in the Government of Canada. Does that remain a priority, yes or no?”