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 3 of 22.
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saskatoon West made the point that there was ample time. I just went back to double-check. First reading on Bill C‑30 was on April 29, and then time allocation, after three hours of debate, was moved a whole month later, basically, on May 25. Does the member recall, because I am trying to recall, what happened with Bill C‑30 between first reading and when the government decided to bring in time allocation?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Mirabel, for pointing out in his speech that I was also present at the Standing Committee on Finance during the 30 hours when the committee was effectively deadlocked. It is not the fault of the committee members. Does my colleague agree that the root of the problem is that we are seized with an omnibus budget bill containing a hidden clause that applies to an entirely separate matter, namely pesticides? That is why we are angry now about the idea of another closure.”
“member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called. Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.”
“Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up. The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon.”
“It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous. I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.”
“Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago. The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something. The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30 . A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Justice says we have a very small window to push through legislation, that is entirely due to the government's decision to adjourn two days early. I wish the government had come to me and asked how I would feel about staying later this summer to properly study bills and not push through the destruction of pesticide regulations in an omnibus budget bill. I know it is not the minister's problem, but we are being pushed to the last minute and told we could not debate something as important as the Senate amendments to Bill C‑14 . I opposed Bill C‑14. It was never passed unanimously, contrary to what the Liberal deputy House leader said. It was on division because members like me, who are not in a recognized party, cannot even stand up and scream “no” when they decide to vote on division.”
“The petition goes on, but the bottom line is that the citizens and residents of Canada who have signed the petition call on the government to show disabled people that it will fix the pressures from the rising costs of everyday life and to give every disabled person across Canada and people on disability supports a tax-free emergency support of $5,000 that is not means-tested and cannot be clawed back.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-6791, signed by 1,084 people. I imagine that most of them are from the disability community. The petition is heart-wrenching to read. I know I cannot read it aloud but must summarize it. It is about the number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in deep poverty. The petitioners say that disabled people have lost hope that anyone cares. Many are turning to MAID because they cannot afford to live, and they are asking why they are not supported to live but have easy supports to die. Many disabled people have fallen off the financial cliff.”
“At the same time that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada cannot meet, we see a discussion paper that says maybe it is okay to lose the southern resident killer whales. It is not acceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is a friend, the parliamentary secretary. Let me give him an example right now that is not hypothetical. None of the wonderful press releases he has mentioned has done a single thing to allow the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada to have a budget sufficient enough to hold the meetings it is required to hold by law. It is supposed to assess and monitor species at risk along a continuum from threatened to critically endangered, but these top-notch scientists have to meet to do that. The committee did not have a budget to meet, so it has gone from two meetings required a year down to one, and it is not going to have enough time to plow through the backlog of species that need attention, need recovery plans and need habitat attention.”
“In this country, we do not want to find ourselves once again with decision-based evidence-making. We need to look at the science and do our research first, before we decide we have to build whatever fast and not be concerned with what the scientists are warning us will occur if we fail to think first, plan well and then build.”
“Changes are being proposed, such as in the massive discussion documents issued May 8, that would have profound impacts, endangering endangered species. Also, we are losing the precautionary principle. If we look, buried in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30 , we find the single biggest assault on bringing evidence and science to bear on the dangers of pesticides to human health and the environment. However, buried in an omnibus bill, it will be studied only by the finance committee, which had no time to hear from witnesses really concerned about this issue. With that, I ask the government again, will it please rethink, stop and be concerned? The precautionary principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as fundamental to our legal jurisprudence.”
“An open letter was sent just today to the Prime Minister 's office, from 425 scientists from many jurisdictions, including internationally, concerned that the cuts to the ocean protection plan mean that we simply will not be able to understand and protect our marine environment. These are serious matters, and I asked the Prime Minister , in April, if he had ever consulted his chief science adviser about these cuts. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a good go of it, saying that, in general, people appreciated the advice of Dr. Mona Nemer, the Prime Minister's chief science adviser. However, since I asked the question, I have had it verified that the Prime Minister has not once sat down to meet with his chief science adviser. This is deeply worrying.”
“A scientific expert, an anthropologist and taxonomist, contacted me because the whole national collection of insects in the Diptera order has been shut down. There are no scientists to pick up this work. They have all been laid off. An international petition was launched; 495 scientists from 47 different countries are raising the alarm about Canada's dropping the ball. It may seem to people that it is obscure to keep track of what species of insect we have in our collection, but it can cause enormous economic damage when we lose the brainpower to know which insect is which. If it is an exotic species that does not belong in a particular forest, we need to know about it soon, and we need to take action. There are cuts across the board.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pursuing a question I first asked on April 14. I have been concerned for some time that the new Liberal government has less respect for science than previous governments had. We recently mourned the death of our colleague Dr. Kirsty Duncan. In all the eulogies, people remembered her as the first minister of science in Canada. We may note, and I hate to say this, that she will be the last minister of science in Canada, because there is not one now. The gravitas, the importance, of scientific briefings and scientific advice from core government departments that are science-based is sorely lacking. This is reflected in the cuts to Environment and Climate Change and to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to basic scientific research. Whole branches of science are being shut down in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-20 . I voted against it last evening. I am looking at Bill C-26 . I am hoping the hon. Minister of Housing can explain to me why the good work done since September by Build Canada Homes, as a special operating agency, seems disconnected from the new Crown corporation. For Bill C-20, we do not even know who the responsible minister would be, because that hat could change based on what cabinet decides at any given time. Can the hon. minister explain to me why we have put so much effort into transferring a special operating agency into a Crown corporation, with nothing new in Bill C-20 and work already under way?”
“Mr. Speaker, division 8 of Bill C-30 , with only three hours of debate in this place before time allocation, represents the single largest rollback of health and environmental protection in the regulation of pesticides in the history of this country. I ask the government, I ask the Prime Minister , where did the pressure come from for this rollback? I am reliably informed that even industry did not ask for it. Why is the government doing this to our environment and our health?”
“Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith that I cannot speculate. I have known this minister a long time, so forgive me for trespassing into my personal history. I am terribly fond of him. I do not think it is the minister. I think it is the government.”
“Madam Speaker, for my friend from Edmonton Manning, I want to be clear. The act would not do anything. I am not saying the government will not do anything. The act is kind of pointless, because the Liberals created a special operating agency. I would agree that there is a titch more transparency when we shift from an agency operating under the Treasury Board to a Crown corporation, but not much. I would demand that the government act and respond to the housing crisis with non-market housing and market housing. The bill does not do it by itself. It does not do anything.”
“Madam Speaker, I know I cannot ask the member a question in response, but if he could show me the sections of the bill that talk about partnership, collaboration, working together and the things he just posed to me in the question, I would be fascinated to know where they are, because it is not that long a bill and they are not in here.”
“Everybody was gotten into housing fast. We need to act like this is an emergency, because it is an emergency. Women my age in my riding are living in their cars. This is driving me to distraction. Why can we not find the housing, build the housing? There are so many delays. They are unintentional in many cases, but they show a lack of political will, which has to come from the top down. Yes, there are multiple levels of government involved, but the federal government, in Build Canada Homes, should set the standard and set some goals.”
“After that, well, I wish the current Minister of Housing a great deal of luck. I hope he becomes the designated minister. Maybe he can make something out of this, but this does nothing more than set up a Crown corporation. We need to do so much more. There will be money thrown at this Crown corporation, for sure. There will be chief executive officers and board members and it will function as a Crown corporation, but will it do more than what Marcel LeBrun did for the people of Fredericton? The first social housing ever built in this country was in the early part of the 1900s, after the Halifax explosion, when that devastating collision in Halifax Harbour wiped out homes for thousands of people and the government had to build housing for people. The government did it, and did it fast. Nobody froze that winter.”
“There are no goals, no timelines, no accountability, no listening to the briefs that the government got from the Assembly of First Nations about engaging indigenous people and no listening to the brief that it got from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where the rubber really hits the road at the municipal housing level. That is where people have to figure out what we are going to do. The government is not listening to the co-operatives in this country. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada gave a great brief to the committee that studied this bill. Since the bill does not include timelines or goals, I think that, if we were to actually put meaning into this bill, the clerk of the committee would have said it was outside the scope of the bill, because the scope of the bill is to set up a Crown corporation.”
“What Marcel LeBrun has done goes on and on. With supports for mental health and addiction, he did not just build homes. He built a community with love, care and compassion. That can be done in every community if we mandate CMHC to see if it can follow the model of what Marcel LeBrun did on his own to create sustainable long-term housing with strong mental health supports and built-in dignity and community. That is what we should be building. This Build Canada Homes bill is not about building homes. I am not being mean about it. If colleagues read it, they will see that the Build Canada Homes act is about setting up a Crown corporation, full stop. Build Canada Homes, Bill C-20 , is about replacing a special operating agency set up last year with a Crown corporation this year.”
“He built 35 homes before he heard from CMHC that his project was approved, because it took CMHC about a year and a half. He got it done. Not only did he get it done, but then he saw that these problems were acute. We cannot take someone who has been homeless, living in a tent or in an encampment in the woods, put them in their own home, and magically everything is good for them, because they lack community and they lack social skills. They are still wondering how they are going to make a living. He created a whole network of social enterprise around the housing development he built himself, for the people in his community, things like a local restaurant that people could come to, where the people who lived in his tiny homes could learn how to work in that restaurant. There is a trade shop, so people can learn how to use a Skilsaw.”
“Then he thought that was not quite enough and the homelessness problem was growing in Fredericton. Long story short, this is what Marcel LeBrun decided to do. He realized that one of the critical obstacles for building affordable homes and social, non-market housing was the cost of land, so he bought a bunch of land. Then he said, “I'm going to build 99 tiny homes on this land, 240-square-foot homes. This will give a person dignity, a home of their own. They can lock the door. It will be their home.” He applied to CMHC for funding. He was prepared to pay one-third of the cost of this project out of his own pocket. He was putting $12 million of his own money into it. CMHC told him it would take about two weeks to process.”
“The first housing crisis, I will underscore, is a market housing supply problem for affordable housing in rental and ownership. The second housing crisis we have is acute, cruel, grinding homelessness and it is on the rise. What do we do about that? I want to share an inspiring example. I was so honoured to tour a little place called 12 Neighbours outside Fredericton. It was a few years ago now. I met Marcel LeBrun of Fredericton, a young man. He would maybe not think he is so young now. He is a multi-millionaire because of his own entrepreneurial instincts and because he got involved in an Internet company he built up and then sold. At a sermon in a Baptist church one day, he was called upon to do more. (1310) He made a big donation to a local homelessness group.”
“Yes, but for a government that wants to, as we always hear from the Prime Minister , move fast, why not use, fit for purpose, the institution we have already? It has in it fewer people who know what they are doing, but it still has a goal and a principle and a practice that understands that housing is a human right. We have two kinds of housing crises in Canada right now. I want to make sure that this is explicit in the rest of my remarks. We have a crisis of affordability in market housing. People earning good incomes cannot afford a good home. A lot of that is due to industry speculation, things like real estate investment trusts, corporations owning housing and making money out of speculation. That hurts, and so does the supply of housing not being adequate to our population.”
“As the member for Vancouver East just pointed out, there is no minister of housing named in the bill as responsible. The minister shall be appointed by someone in the Privy Council at any given time, who will say, of the people around the cabinet table, this week it will be Joe. That is the kind of accountability we have here. That worries me. We also have the fundamental reality that since the end of the Second World War, since 1945, we have had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. Was there something wrong with CMHC? It has been massively cut. It is not being scrapped. We will still have CMHC. The Minister of Housing is responsible for CMHC. That is an entity we understand. Are there endless delays? Are there things that should be done better at CMHC?”
“The purpose is: ...to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada. The rest of the bill is devoted to how many people are on the board of directors, what it can borrow and what it can lend. My favourite part of the bill, which, again, is a bill about setting up a corporation, is that this new corporation, Build Canada Homes, can actually take money from the federal government and give it to the federal government. It is lacking, shall we say, in ambition. The bill misses the point. If it is going to take us through the process of passing legislation in this place, it ought to have accountability.”
“That is something it has done a couple of times since the new government came in. Special operating agencies operate under the Treasury Board in an opaque environment where nothing is particularly visible or transparent or included in legislation. We already created Build Canada Homes on September 14 of last year. We are creating Build Canada Homes but not as a special operating agency. The bill deals with that. It would now be a Crown corporation. The bill would set up a Crown corporation. That is what it would do. It does not talk about the housing crisis. It does not give tools to address the housing crisis. It sets no targets. It has no timelines. It does not talk about the housing crisis.”
“Madam Speaker, I confess that I have been struggling as to whether I vote for or against the bill. Of course, building homes for Canadians is a great goal. I would vote for that. I kept trying to figure out why it is that I am having trouble figuring out whether I would vote for it or against it. I guess it is because, when I really study the bill and think it through, it does absolutely nothing, even if fully implemented. That is troubling. I am just going to get to the bare bones. To Canadians who may be watching, what does Bill C-20 do? It is called an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. That is a familiar-sounding announcement because it was made on September 14, 2025, when the government created Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East anticipated my question, because I was just asking where the accountability measures are in the bill. I wonder if she has noticed, as I have, that the responsible minister is not actually listed. The bill just says they may be “designated by the Governor in Council”. Where is the accountability?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition on behalf of many constituents and other people. This petition has over 800 signatories. The petitioners are concerned, as are so many Canadians, about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I will summarize the petition. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to increase support for civilians, particularly the thousands of children suffering from acute malnutrition, and for the loss of civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed, and they call for an end to the obstacles to delivering humanitarian aid. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to pressure our government to apply diplomatic and economic pressure to urge an immediate lifting of the blockade and to ensure the swift and unimpeded delivery of assistance to the people of Gaza.”
“My concern with this bill, and I will agree with my hon. friend from Pitt Meadows, is the proposed creation of new bureaucracies on bureaucracies. I will address this when I get a chance in my speech, but it does not mean that the Build Canada Homes idea is a bad idea. How do we get more efficient delivery, from a speech and money and a commitment to actually getting Canadians homes?”
“Madam Speaker, I find it discouraging, as I am sure many members do, when the debates get overly partisan. I did not find the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to be particularly partisan in his comments. Also, in a weird show of solidarity with a former member, I would like to point out that poor Bev Oda has been vilified for years for something that was not her fault. It is her fault that she is addicted to smoking, and her staff put her in a non-smoking hotel. She asked to be moved, and she never bothered to check that, where she was moving to, it was impossible to order breakfast without getting a $16 glass of orange juice. There are many things about which Bev Oda and I disagreed, but I served at the same time as her, and we did share a love of dogs, so I will just put that out there.”
“Madam Speaker, there was so much I agreed with in the speech the member gave. She referred to the fact that we should look at homes as homes and not as investments. If I am not quoting her accurately, I am sure she can correct me. The concept that Greens also bring to this is that we are building homes and communities. We are not just building homes for market purposes. We need to meet the needs of communities and help people actually have a life with dignity. I wonder if the member has any comments on the approach between a Crown corporation, bricks and mortar, and what we can do to make people's lives better.”
“Madam Speaker, I have no objection to Bill C-16 , but this is only the first step. Now there is a Crown corporation. [ English ] A Crown corporation is better than having a special operating agency, which is where Build Canada Homes started out. [ Translation ] However, I do have some concerns regarding the minister's accountability and responsibility. The more independent the organization is, the less responsibility he bears. When it comes to the important issue of housing, accountability is crucial. (1015) [ English ] The accountability question is the one that bothers me. We are seeing a lot of new Crown corporations created. Will the ministerial lines of accountability be as strong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the first part of my question was this: I wonder how the slogan “artificial intelligence for all” lands in Tumbler Ridge, where seven families are now in court seeking redress for the loss of their children, who were not adequately protected. When will we see protection?”
“Mr. Speaker, I started to put my question forward when I heard my riding addressed. I have been informed by colleagues that I stood up and began to address the question without having the microphone on. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary has answered, but may I repeat the first part of my question?”
“Mr. Speaker, children's lives could have been saved if we had better protection. I am wondering, despite the benefits of AI, why does this strategy land with more promotion than protection? When will the Prime Minister and the government consider the advice of Pope Leo XIV that AI needs to be “disarmed”?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to take the floor to ask a question of my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South. I am distressed. I certainly agree with all the sentiments. We need to make sure that we are acting to protect people from the crimes that we have talked about, including intimate partner violence. However, we are falling back on rhetoric in the absence of evidence when we start echoing the notion that mandatory minimum sentences are somehow great at preventing crime, because there is no evidence for that at all. Empirical studies from all around the world, particularly from the U.S., where they were used a lot in Texas, prove conclusively that they do not deter crime. What deters crime is the risk of being caught, not longer sentences.”
“Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice will know that I have never seen a debate closure motion that I liked. I think time allocation is overused. I support Bill C‑16 , although I regret that my amendments to extend coercive control to protect seniors from elder abuse were not accepted in this round. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to ask him, since the bill now contains a periodic review, if the justice department would not see fit to bring in a bill against elder abuse, specifically dealing with the coercive control of seniors by those who are close to them or make the pretense of being close to them.”
“Of the 231 calls for justice in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, there have only been, at this point, three dealt with according to the last data. The petitioners call on the government to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to prioritize funding and policies that advance Canada's process for reconciliation and justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, today being June 3, we have hit the seventh anniversary of the tabling of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry. The petitioners call the attention of Parliament to the ongoing harm toward indigenous peoples and communities, through both historical and ongoing colonization and genocide. The petitioners point out that the legal and social change needed to address the high rates of violence against indigenous women and girls was pointed out in the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry, and there are over 231 calls for justice. The petitioners point out that the federal government is jointly or directly accountable for 76 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, but has only acted on 13 to date.”
“There is Trump, there is Netanyahu, and there is Putin. How can Canada amplify our diplomatic efforts and consider sanctions against these bad actors?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, for giving such a thoughtful answer. He is quite correct that I did not get out the last words, which were, will the Prime Minister belatedly condemn these actions? The actions have continued, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, from that horrible attack of February 28. We have now had the spreading of conflict in multiple directions. There are sanctions against Hezbollah and sanctions against Iran, but when are we going to talk about sanctions against Netanyahu and Israel for persistently violating international law? Again, what can we do? I know it is complicated by Trump's attacks on Canada in terms of our commerce and trade, but the reality is that there are several great destabilizers around the world right now.”
“As the time passes, I wonder what the government is saying about the United Nations charter and international law. Is it only when it is convenient?”
“He went on to call for “a consistent Canadian standard, one that applies the laws of war and the principle of protecting civilians, whether the actors are allies or adversaries.” The difficulty we have is that Canada should have been quick to condemn in the first Trump administration. I think we actually did that when the Trump administration tore up the agreement that had been reached with Iran, which was working. Of course the goal is to make sure Iran never has nuclear weapons. The Government of Iran is ruthless, ignores human rights, is abusive and also exports terrorism. Nobody questions that, but ignoring international law is a grave error. In the case of the original U.S.-Iran deal, it was working. It was “Trust but verify”. The international atomic energy experts were getting access to all the research facilities.”