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 21 of 22.
“Mr. Chair, I am participating virtually and sharing my time, which I believe is 15 minutes, with the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona . I will start my questions to the hon. President of the Treasury Board through you, Mr. Chair. I have gone back to the 2021 mandate letter, the last I could find, to the President of the Treasury Board . I am wondering if he can tell us whether pursuit of the greening of government strategy, which was a priority then in 2021, remains a priority for the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely support this motion. It is very clear, and I put it to the member, that we need to start a law proceeding, based not, as the hon. secretary of state suggested, on fraud but on breach of contract, and it should not stop with GC Strategies. We should go back and also sue IBM for damages for the failed Phoenix pay system, which cost this country billions. Does the member agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising this morning to present a petition of concern to many constituents, and probably Canadians coast to coast, on the treatment of our veterans. The Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act calls on Canada to show just and due appreciation for veterans and members for their service to Canada, yet we still have a law that requires a five-year statutory limit on back pay eligibility, which the petitioners believe unjustly punishes veterans for Veterans Affairs Canada's application processing delays. The petitioners call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to remove any statutory limits on back pay eligibility for the disability allowance, to work with individual veterans to achieve just and due compensation for disabilities and to do so in a timely manner.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister has mentioned in the media nuclear projects. The only time in the history of this country that a debate was scheduled to discuss nuclear energy, its pluses and minuses, was under the former minister of energy, Ray Hnatyshyn, in the government of Joe Clark. Would the minister care to commit to having an open debate on nuclear energy in the House of Commons?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister should understand his own legislation. Most of what has been said in the media about this bill, most of what the minister has said, constitutes unenforceable promises and press releases.”
“Mr. Chair, it is very clear in the proposed act, and I refer the minister to the language of the act, which is, “Governor in Council may consider any factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant”. Does the minister understand the legal meaning of the word “may”?”
“Mr. Chair, none of what he has just said is actually what Bill C-5 says. There is no requirement for consensus, nor is there any legal requirement that any of the factors that are listed are actually considered by cabinet.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister refers repeatedly to the criteria as if they have some force in law. Does he not understand his own act, in that there could be no reference to any of those factors and still follow the law?”
“Mr. Chair, on the fundamental basis on which the legislation works, I refer the minister to clause 5 of the act, which shows that the decision-maker is the cabinet, and the cabinet is made up of politicians. Does he not agree?”
“Mr. Chair, I have questions for the Minister of Natural Resources. I do not want to appear rude, but I have been hearing what the minister has been saying. I need to ask him whether he has read the one Canadian economy act.”
“Mr. Chair, we could commit to ensuring not what Canadians generally agree on but what the department and CMHC will stick to as the unified definition: that affordability and deeply affordable housing is 30% of before-tax household income.”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre . I want to start with my questions to the Minister of Housing, and welcome him, a fellow British Columbian member of Parliament, to the House of Commons. I want to ask him whether he is aware of the work of Dr. Carolyn Whitzman, who found that CMHC has six different definitions of affordable housing, and whether he would not agree that it would be good to confirm and unify one definition of affordable housing.”
“A key feature in good, solid gold-standard carbon pricing is that the government should not live on pollution as a source of revenue to government. We want to make sure that whatever we take in on a carbon price is rebated as efficiently as possible to those who paid it. To the idea that we do not want to have this, I just add again that according to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development—”
“Carbon pricing is being accepted by economists around the world as having a more efficient economic impact, reduced transactional costs of implementing the regulatory approach. Generally, people on the right do not like regulation. That is a choice: If we are going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, we could use a regulatory approach. We could use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part 4, which already exists, and put in place regulated, required hard caps on emissions of any pollutants, thus bringing them down sharply without having to use the more complex measures of pricing. I would rather see the consumer carbon price used as what is called, in the literature, carbon fee and dividend, in other words, maintaining pollution taxation as revenue-neutral.”
“I know we are coming near a point where I should close to avoid being interrupted, but I do not mind interruptions, certainly for unanimous consent motions, because I think we are unanimous on that. However, let us just say I am probably the only remaining member of Parliament who will stand up and say that the consumer carbon price was a good idea. It is a shame to see such cowardice on all sides of the House from the parties that used to support using market mechanisms, which is actually from the right-wing tool kit invented by Republicans in Washington, D.C., of how we can reduce emissions of whatever. Air pollutants in the area around Los Angeles is one of the first places market mechanisms were used.”
“(1850) In this place, we like time travel; let us face it. We do like seeing the clock at midnight when it is not midnight, and we can do that in this place. We can say, “Gee, I wish it were midnight. I am ready to go home. Let us all agree we see the clock at midnight.” I do not know whether anyone has ever tried a trick like seeing the year at 25 years ago. I am worried about this, and I do not know that we will have time, but I certainly hope we will properly study Bill C-4 in committee, and maybe we can persuade the government that part 4 should be pulled apart and studied separately from the rest of the bill. The rest of the bill is tax measures. There is only part of the tax measures I would want to address at this point, and I am cognizant of the time.”
“A bill would pass through the House, pass through the Senate and then come into force, sometimes at a date that is certain. I have a pretty good memory. I may have forgotten that there was ever a bill like this one, but within my ability to remember everything I have ever read in legislation, I do not think I have ever seen a bill that purports to come into force 25 years before the date on which it is passed. Members who are learning this for the first time, if they look at clause 49 of Bill C-4 , will find that the date on which the bill we are discussing today, June 11, 2025, would have come into force is May 31, 2000. This would exempt federal political parties from any offences they may have committed in failing to obey provincial legislation to which we were subjected, by going all the way back, resetting the clock, to May 31, 2000.”
“member for Souris—Moose Mountain , mention the issue that we want to protect personal information and that privacy laws should extend to political parties. Unusually, in Bill C-4 , new subsection 446.4(1) would assert an ability for federal legislation to negate provincial privacy laws and what provincial privacy laws can say about federal political parties. That is questionable at best. It also, to me, is somewhat offensive, or very offensive I suppose, that clause 49 of part 4 of Bill C-4 deals with the date of coming into force. Experienced members of this place who look at statutory interpretation, which we do, and I hope we all read the legislation and all bills carefully, know certainly that coming into force is usually a date in the future.”
“The Canada Elections Act and privacy concerns for Canadian citizens under the Elections Act have no connection whatsoever to affordability. However, here we have it: part 4, Canada Elections Act amendments that are similar to what we saw in the previous Parliament in Bill C-65 , which I do wish had carried before we went into the last election, as it would have certainly expedited the collection of signatures for candidates and their chances of getting nominated candidates onto ballots. This is weaker than that, but it does have some connection to what we saw in Bill C-65 in relating to restrictions on political parties' ability to save information and violate Canadians' privacy. It does not belong in an affordability act at all. We have heard at least one other MP tonight, the hon.”
“We are looking at Bill C-4 tonight, and I will give it more detail, but briefly, Bill C-5 should have been two different pieces of legislation. Part 1 deals with interprovincial barriers between labour mobility and recognizing different kinds of restrictions to moving goods. Part 2 is the building Canada act, which is entirely different. Part 1 has drawn attention from the Canadian Cancer Society, as it is concerned the bill may lead to a weakening of standards across the country. Meanwhile, part 2 needs massive study, appears, at least to me, to give unprecedented levels of unfettered political discretion to cabinet, and is unprecedented in its scope. On Bill C-4 , before I go to the affordability section, let me just point to the anomalous inclusion of changes to the Canada Elections Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-4 . First of all, I want to make a couple of observations about the legislation we are seeing in this place under the new government. I am distressed. It may be a manageable issue, and maybe I am the only one who is noticing that almost every bill that comes before us is in omnibus form; in other words, many different bills are addressed within the same bill. Some of the issues are connected one to the other, which makes it a legitimate omnibus bill, and some seem to be for the purpose of convenience, to save the government time. For instance, in Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, there are some aspects that do not really have to do with borders at all, and there is significant concern from people who are in the refugee law community, and from Amnesty International.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. He has raised something that I have been concerned about, which is this: What the heck does part 4 of the bill, changes to the Canada Elections Act, have to do with affordability? I want to know if the member has any comment on another section. I am sure he noticed it. Section 49, which we can call the “time machine” section, says the bill would come into force, in terms of the sections around the privacy of election information, 25 years ago. Does he have any comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2017, our current Prime Minister said that most fossil fuel reserves are “unburnable” under any reasonable climate targets. In 2022, he said that transitioning our economies to net zero is an enormous opportunity and that the transition is “capital-intensive” and “job-heavy”, and is what the world needs for the future and right now. Given that growth in solar, 25%, and batteries, 50%, now outpaces fossil growth by a scale of 12 to 1, will the minister reallocate subsidies to match and fast-track critical minerals for batteries?”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona . I will ask my questions, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. The International Energy Agency forecasts global oil demand will peak imminently and drop 25% by 2030. Before demand drops that far, OPEC intends to monetize its five-million-barrel-a-day spare capacity, threatening prices under $60 a barrel for Brent crude. Canadian Energy Research Institute said this would make most oil sands projects' cash flow negative. For the 2025 budget, how will the minister mitigate Alberta bitumen revenue shortfalls, federal government revenue shortfalls, stranded long-lasting fossil pipelines and other assets, and price-collapse risks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I have been here for this entire debate, but it is very difficult to get a chance to speak. As he said, there is concern about fossil fuel subsidies. I want to add that, during the election campaign, the Green Party asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to tell us how much these subsidies amounted to. We wanted to know how much money was being paid to businesses. It is a huge waste of public resources. In fact, most of the companies receiving these subsidies are foreign companies, and they are wealthy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that he could not get that answer because of obstacles put up by the Department of Finance. What does my colleague think about the mystery surrounding these subsidies—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am distressed that the member is happy the government's first act was to remove the one climate measure that was actually reducing emissions. I want to ask him if he is aware of when Canadians will be told what the new government plans to do to try to get on track to meeting our legal obligations under the Paris Agreement for the year 2030. We are far off target, and we just killed the one measure that was doing anything to bring down emissions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join Parliament virtually to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are petitioning the Government of Canada to take action to implement a guaranteed livable income. The petitioners point out that this would be essentially a tax measure. It does not include administrative burden, as it would be relying on the social insurance number, and it would not be needs-based. The petitioners point out that savings would occur through decreased pressure on our health care system, criminal justice system and demand for social services. Reducing poverty is to the benefit of all Canadians, and the petitioners hope the Government of Canada will respond favourably to the petition.”
“Mr. Chair, in an earlier exchange with the member for Repentigny , the Minister of Environment misinformed this House. I would like to ask if she has read subsection 5(6) of the bill, which says all the factors for consideration are purely discretionary and the cabinet may consider them.”
“Mr. Chair, there are two minutes to each of us then. I begin with the Minister of Immigration . At 9:27 p.m., Minister, you said, “Legitimate asylum seekers, we want to protect you.” Minister, can you reconcile that with the expert opinion of Amnesty International and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, who say that Bill C-2 is an attack on the human right to seek asylum?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to rise to present a petition on the subject of public transit. [ English ] The petitioners note that the 10-year transit plan that was funded will end in 2027 and that the funding was inadequate to meet the needs of a modern, industrialized country. They ask for a continuation and an expansion of the fund, and for all governments to pull together in order to ensure that Canadians have access to public transit across the country from coast to coast to coast.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no way on God's green earth that Bill C-5 is ready for passage. Concerns and alarms have been raised by every environmental law association in Canada, by the Climate Action Network and now by the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations. The Canadian Cancer Society has pointed out that the interprovincial barriers that come down may lead to a race to the bottom on health and environmental risks. Will the government please redraft and reintroduce a bill that has a hope of passage?”
“Mr. Chair, the minister mentioned Roberts Bank. I want to draw to her attention, if she is unaware, to the fact that scientists have urged the government to say no as it will lead to the extinction of species.”
“Mr. Chair, my Bloc Québécois colleague raised the issue about the long delays on VIA tracks, because the Venture trains are being held up by the risk-averse CN. Will the minister intervene and ensure Via Rail does not go broke?”
“Mr. Chair, I will share my five minutes with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni . I apologize to the ministers I would like to talk to more, but we have to go fast. To the hon. Minister of Public Safety, there has been a commitment to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers. Given it has been two years since the Mass Casualty Commission recommended that the minimum training for RCMP officers go to three years, is the government prepared to do that?”
“He took his leave of this place without this kind of round of speeches, because he did not let us know he was going until one day he stood up and said, “I'll be going now.” He gave a speech, begging us to co-operate more, to be more respectful, and I will never forget it. He packed up his briefcase, buckled it, and started to walk past the aisle, past me. I asked him, “Marc, is this it? Are you going today? Is this it?” I threw my arms around him and gave him the biggest hug. It was the last time I saw him. I said, “I'm just going to miss you so much, but let's stay in touch.” I kick myself now. We did not do that so well. We have lost a very great human being. To his entire family, I send my deepest condolences and sympathy. May they know that in that space where he looks down at planet Earth now, I think it is a place called heaven.”
“[ English ] When Marc Garneau reflected on that time in space, he said that, the first time in space, “What you aren't ready for—on an emotional and intellectual level—is how looking down at Earth will profoundly affect you.” On this World Environment Day, it seems fitting, and really hard, to say goodbye to someone who was unfailingly kind and unfailingly respectful across party lines. [ Translation ] As my Conservative colleague mentioned, Marc Garneau was known as a true star, an exceptional yet remarkably humble person. I will never forget his last day here; his seat was not far from mine. [ English ] He had to pass by me.”
“I would never have said anything; I would have been grateful if someone else had taken up the fight. His lack of partisanship in that moment, that willingness to be so generous, was absolutely breathtaking, and it cemented a friendship. I was so very honoured to work with him. [ Translation ] He was a great Canadian, a great member of Parliament and a great man. He also had a remarkable background in science, in addition to his career as an astronaut. As my colleagues have already pointed out, he took part in three space missions.”
“Marc supported my efforts and joined my fight against Bill C‑38. [ English ] I will never forget how extraordinary it was. He was the leader in the House for the Liberal Party then, and I had gone to the other opposition party leaders. I said to him, “Look, I have about 400 amendments to this, and I have the right to present them at report stage, but I really do not want to do it all by myself because I know it will generate a lot of opposition.” He said, “Let me think about it.” It was not long, maybe a day, until I found that he had gone to a media scrum and said, “We have decided to support what Elizabeth May is doing with these motions and amendments.” I thought that he could just as easily have taken them and presented them as Liberal amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise today to add my voice to those paying tribute to our dear friend Marc Garneau. It is a big shock that he is no longer with us today. It was a great honour to work with him. We had been friends for over 14 years. I worked with him here, in the House. When I was elected in 2011, the Conservative Party had a majority government on this side of the House, and Marc was in the corner, because the Liberal Party was the third party in the House. There were only four Bloc Québécois members, and I was in that corner too. We were there in the spring of 2012 when Prime Minister Harper brought in his omnibus Bill C‑38 to gut environmental laws. I fought hard against that bill. (1540) I was surprised to learn that it was thanks to Marc Garneau that the Liberal Party gave me its support.”
“Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about is this. It is great to know that we are hiring more law enforcement officials, but has the government read the Mass Casualty Commission report on the Portapique shootings and the quite substantial recommendations that RCMP officers need more extensive and better training that lasts years? Are we going to see the implementation of the Mass Casualty Commission report recommendations before hiring more RCMP officers, who will, according to the Mass Casualty Commission, lack the training to save lives?”
“My friend from Kitchener—Conestoga may not know the answer, but given that it is an omnibus bill, is the government prepared to split this bill so that the relevant sections are studied by committees with expertise in immigration and refugee law, and other committees that look at it from the Oceans Act perspective and so on?”
“Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to get in on this debate. While Canadians, obviously, are looking to the government for a policy that addresses borders, there are a lot of details in this bill. It is an omnibus bill and changes 14 different laws. I am particularly concerned about the sections that would make it impossible for people who might have had refugee status to apply for it now if they have been in Canada sometime for other, legitimate purposes. This bill would need amendments before I can vote for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not a pipe dream. It is getting to be a bit of a joke, but it is not funny. The reality is that we have programs to reduce greenhouse gases, but there are no longer any at the federal level. Good programs exist, particularly in the province of Quebec, which plays an important role in global alliances against fossil fuels. When I attended UN conferences, the one thing that made me proud to be a Canadian was the role that the province of Quebec played in those partnerships. This new government might change its approach. It must do so, because time is running out. It is not too late.”
“Mr. Speaker, to defend my friend from Saskatoon—University, I think he meant the last person speaking. However, I will proceed to say that the Liberal Party of Canada has been the biggest promoter of nuclear energy ever since Pierre Trudeau. It has never stopped shovelling money toward it. I enjoyed my time briefly working with leaders in the Reform Party, who called former prime minister Jean Chrétien “radioactive man”. That was back in the days of Deb Grey and a number of other fun friends in the Reform Party. They wanted to figure out whether there was a business case behind this or whether it was just shovelling money into something called AECL that would take endless billions of dollars and not produce a product that other countries want to buy from us.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not an ideological position. We approach this way for every kind of energy source: For the dollar invested, how much carbon is reduced, how many jobs are created, and how long does it take from the decision that has been made until we see the energy produced? The reality is, on that measurement, that the top-notch winner is energy efficiency, then renewables. Nuclear is at the bottom of the pile. One last thing is this: With the nuclear proponents right now, it is like a witness protection program. They changed the name, but it is SNC-Lavalin behind every SMR proposal. Its name is now AtkinsRéalis, and it stays under the screen that it is the biggest shareholder in Canadian nuclear laboratories, which makes it sound legit. It is a scam.”
“[ English ] I would just like to say that I will vote in favour of the Speech from the Throne, but I wait with bated breath to find out what the government actually thinks is a climate plan, because so far all it has done is cut the one measure that was working.”
“We want to protect the workers and the communities in those industries, but we have to actually be looking at what is a nation-building project that protects our future. We desperately need an east-west, north-south electricity grid so we can make good use of, and share across provincial boundaries, energy and electricity that is far cheaper than what many provinces now have. Their consumers are stuck with bad decision-making by their provincial utilities. There are huge opportunities before us. It is, as the Prime Minister says, a “hinge moment” in our history. [ Translation ] We must do more and we must reduce greenhouse gases to protect our future and our grandchildren's future.”
“It appears that the Prime Minister understands we have to cut our greenhouse emissions in half every year. This is a very steep challenge, and as he put it in Value(s) , which I read and enjoyed, “the carbon budget to [stay] below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted”. He is not saying that this is a political commitment that somebody before him, as prime minister, took on and he is not very interested in it, although we might think that from the lack of details about what kind of climate action we are talking about in the Speech from the Throne, and why now we are suddenly finding it acceptable that everybody talks about expanding oil and gas as though that were a nation-building project as opposed to a sunset industry.”
“Of course we know that, while King Charles III read the speech, it was written by the Prime Minister . These were words I would have liked to have seen in the Speech from the Throne. They were also written by the Prime Minister : The carbon budget to limit temperature rise to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted.... If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5 degree C objective by halving emissions [in other words, cutting them in half] every thirty years. Now, we must halve emissions every ten years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. That is from page 273 of the Prime Minister's book Value(s) . He wrote it, and it was published in 2021, so we have waited four years.”
“We have signed on to numerous international agreements where that is a goal: that we want to be the kind of country where we are resilient, resourceful and sustainable and that we lift everybody up and leave no one behind. These are things we can do now, and it is terribly important that we actually do them. [ Translation ] I have a question about the Speech from the Throne. I am a little concerned because there is not a single reference to the Paris Agreement in this speech. [ English ] There were two passing references. The words “climate change” appear, not in full sentences, but they do appear twice in the document. However, there are no commitments, not even the minimum we had planned for meeting our international, legally binding obligations under the Paris Agreement.”