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 4 of 22.
“That is in fact what we did. The condemnation should have been from Canada's government immediately. I want to include in my brief remarks tonight while pursuing this question something that I rarely do. I would like to thank a member of the opposition benches, a newly elected member of Parliament from the riding that abuts mine, shall we say, my neighbour, the hon. Liberal member for Victoria , who was, prior to entering politics, associate professor of international law at the University of Victoria. He was unequivocal in issuing a written statement that Canada's response fell short. I will quote the hon. member for Victoria as he was quoted in the Times Colonist: “Canada cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal acts of military force”.”
“Today [the Prime Minister] embraced it.” He went on to say, again quoting Lloyd Axworthy, “Under the [United Nations] Charter, cross-border uses of force are prohibited except in two narrow cases”. He then pointed out that Operation Epic Fury, as the White House called it, applies to neither. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister at the time whether he would belatedly condemn what the U.S. and Israel did in attacking Iran. The response from the Minister of Foreign Affairs , just to summarize, was that while we support Iran's never obtaining nuclear weapons, this support is not a blank cheque. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all parties. The U.S. and Israel must respect the rules of international engagement. In other words, this stopped and fell short of a condemnation of our allies' ignoring international law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising at the hour of adjournment, or as we colloquially call it around here, the late show, to pursue a question I asked the Prime Minister but to which the response came from the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs . The question I asked was on March 9 and was in relation to the events of February 28, when, illegally, the government of Israel and the government of the United States authorized attacks, strikes, on Iran. In my question to the hon. minister , I quoted our former minister of foreign affairs, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who actually wrote to the Toronto Star to say, “Canada once rejected America's aggressive, unlawful foreign policy.”
“member for North Vancouver—Capilano as he leaves here that we are always in the right to remember one of the greatest Canadian parliamentarians ever, Tommy Douglas. The fact that the hon. member was able to be brought into cabinet to represent Saskatchewan, while a Vancouver MP, is one of those things that we know will define him as a great Canadian to represent Canada to the EU. I ask him to remember other lines that I recall from William Blake's Jerusalem , which I also love. It is not “my sword sleep in my hand” or about this green land, but remember how William Blake described industry: the “dark Satanic Mills”. To the hon. member, continue the good work. We look forward to seeing him at home in Canada, and in the meantime I hope to be able to come now and then to Brussels. I thank him so much for his service.”
“member did on fisheries, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Kingsway has pointed out, the work to ban single-use plastics to get them out of our oceans, the work, as has been mentioned, for wild salmon, the work on carbon pricing and the work to move to a post-carbon economy. These lessons and the hard fights that he had must not be lost, so I will say, from the bottom of my heart, “thank you”, and I will say that perhaps his child Max might say that when the member gets to Brussels, he should change Canada's position to make ecocide a crime under the International Criminal Court provisions. That is just something to take away. No one asked me to say that. Additionally, I would say to the hon.”
“I do not think we started out that way, but it was one of my favourite moments in any committee meeting when our hon. colleague gave me his time at the beginning of the environment committee. It was a choice moment, and it does not happen very often, but he did not really need a briefing book either way. I will just say that. He is one of the ministers in this place who are not in need of someone telling them what the facts are or telling them what to say. It would be unnecessary. In reviewing all the years that he has served in this place, primarily under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, anyone here will know that we hardly ever crossed paths: in other words, pretty constantly. There is the work that the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from North Vancouver—Capilano , it is bittersweet to see him leave this place. The only sweet part is knowing that he will be representing Canada so well as our ambassador to the European Union, a jurisdiction that has not forgotten climate change. Earlier today, I was meeting with a colleague from the German Greens who serves as a member of the European Parliament. She was describing to me what it was like to work in Brussels and Strasbourg, back and forth, and she thought it was a long trip. I explained what it was like to be a British Columbia member of Parliament in this place. She is from Hanover. The hon. member may run into her someday. My hon. colleague and friend from North Vancouver—Capilano and I have become friends.”
“Mr. Speaker, to the point of order raised by the hon. member and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East , having been in those discussions on the main estimates, and I know I do not need to reacquaint you, Mr. Speaker, I note the serious nature of those committee of the whole sessions. I am very troubled by what the hon. member for Vancouver East has detailed in what she has documented, and I hope this matter will be investigated thoroughly.”
“Madam Speaker, my question concerns the Bloc Québécois's economic approach. It is clear that the Liberals, the former Conservatives and the current Conservative Party all think alike when it comes to the economy. It is always about economic growth, but without regard for the well-being of everyone. What do my colleague from Mirabel and the Bloc Québécois think of the circular economy or Kate Raworth's book Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist ? Could my colleague explain what the Bloc Québécois's approach to envisioning a different economy entails?”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. It is clear that this is, unfortunately, a real tragedy. I am very disappointed. It is now clear that, with the current policies, the Government of Canada can no longer meet the Paris Agreement targets. That will have a huge impact on Canada's security and the economy, as well as worldwide. We have a great challenge ahead of us and the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have decided that they are not interested in the future. I do not understand how it is possible for someone who understands the crisis to make these decisions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did vote for it, and I stand here as the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget, because not only was I given oral promises, but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget. That was reversed within 10 days of that vote, so yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget. That is quite something. It is a new record. Some governments forget what they said they were going to put in a budget, and two or three years later they have not done it, but I have never seen a promise in a budget reversed. Neither had the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , which is why he is going to be leaving this place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not concede it because it is not true. The reality is that the Conservatives have been more than obliging in helping the government pass lots of legislation, including Bill C-5 , and including things I found astonishing. The reality is that now, with the new Liberal majority, we are seeing time allocation when it is not needed and pushing things through before they are properly studied. In the end, and I offer this from my heart as a warning to the majority Liberals, this will come back to bite them.”
“In its first day of debate, most of the debate time was taken up by the farewell speech of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie . The time is up, but we have to let Canadians know that this is unacceptable.”
“That is the bottom line. Ecojustice, one of Canada's pre-eminent environmental law groups, finds that this must be amended, that we must maintain cyclical re-evaluations and uphold science-based decision-making. Earlier today, one of the members here presented a really important petition, and I am wondering if these things are not connected. Is there a pro-pesticide bias emerging from the current government that connects with cuts at the Swift Current agriculture research station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan? It was the country's pre-eminent research hub for many years in organic agriculture. Does the current government dislike the idea of organic agriculture? Does it want to promote pesticide-based agriculture? Again, here we are. This bill has had, as far as I can count, about one and a half days of debate.”
“In this legislation, we suddenly have the discretionary initiating of an assessment and then, if the minister is convinced that, on the basis of the assessment, the health and safety and the environmental risks of a registered pest control product have increased significantly, then the minister may have a re-evaluation, but the minister may also decide at any time to stop the re-evaluation. Therefore, there would be no certainty and, certainly from a public health point of view and from an environmental point of view, this would fundamentally weaken the regime within which we use chemicals and products that are, by definition, intended to be toxic. They are intended to kill things. It is not an accident. That is their purpose. Therefore, the notion that we would no longer have cyclical re-evaluations undermines science.”
“They are routine, but the bill we have before us today would change the review, and this gets murky. As someone who practised law, I know that one of the things we hate to see in new legislation is a change to the definitions because, by the time most legislation has gone around for a couple of years, and this legislation has been around for decades, the meaning of the words is clear, so there is not a lot of room for uncertainty and not knowing what we are dealing with.”
“These are the kinds of cuts to regulations that Margaret Thatcher engaged in that led to mad cow disease. We do not cut corners on health and safety. We do not cut corners on pesticide regulation for national economic concerns, overriding a minister of environment or a minister of health. It is quite surprising. I was unable to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading debate, and now we have come to Bill C-31 . I have to say I was astonished, in reading the 331 pages of Bill C-31, to find that it too takes aim at the Pest Control Products Act. This time it is found in division 13 in changes to the Pest Control Products Act to reduce the mandatory review every 15 years to look at a substance and, if the situation has changed, to have an evaluation.”
“Sometimes, it is referenced as having to make these measures because they want to move to, as I mentioned before, modern oversight. In other places, it is referenced as though we can bring down the cost of groceries if we use more pesticides. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Having worked on pesticides in this country as an environmental lawyer, and before that as an activist, I have worked on pesticide issues in this country since 1975. In any case, no government has ever attempted something as reckless as what Bill C-30 would do in saying that the decision of the minister responsible, when a substance is too dangerous to be used, could be overturned by cabinet, at cabinet's discretion, if it seems that it affects, astonishingly, “national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”.”
“Bill C-30 says, which is astonishing, that if a minister decides that a pest control product is so dangerous it cannot be used, that usually is the end of the matter. This refers to a pesticide, and this covers herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and all manner of products that are intended to kill living things, insecticides and herbicides being the most common. However, now, because of Bill C-30 , which as I said was pushed through second reading after three hours of debate, the cabinet can override the Minister of Health or the Minister of Environment if they consider it “necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security, or national food security.” (1705) Going back to the original budget, we see that they have thrown in this justification here and there.”
“Because the debate on Bill C-30 was shut down after three hours, there was not time for every member or even every party to make a speech. I did manage to ask the parliamentary secretary for finance when it was first tabled how it was that there were these provisions to so weaken pesticide oversight and pesticide reviews. I asked if it would be possible to have a section of the bill, division 8, go to a committee on health or the environment to be studied. The hon. parliamentary secretary said he would look into it, but I have heard nothing further and, as far as we know, this is going to the finance committee, not a health and safety committee. I have not had an opportunity to speak to this in the House, and it does relate to Bill C-31 , because it is more of the same.”
“In Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, I want to talk about the significant changes to the Pest Control Products Act. We remember that the 2025 budget was all about build Canada strong. There is one line about the Pest Control Products Act, which is now the subject of changes in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Here is one line from budget 2025, which states, “the government proposes to amend legislation to remove cyclical pesticide re-evaluations to enable modern, risk-based oversight.” According to Prevent Cancer Now and Ecojustice, one of the country's leading environmental law groups, this is not about modern risk-based oversight, but about reducing the regulation of pesticides, reducing environment and health and safety controls that can actually affect human health, as well as the environment, in ways that I found completely shocking.”
“It is becoming de rigueur . It is almost with every single bill that we are told we have had enough time to talk about it and we move on. There are many things that one would focus on with respect to two omnibus bills. What I want to focus on in the time I have is with respect to the one we are debating today, Bill C-31 , which is 331 pages long. I lugged it around with me all weekend. There is only one part of it that I want to raise now, but there would be more. When we get to committee perhaps I will get an opportunity to say a word or two. These are budget implementation acts. Bill C-30 has now passed second reading and Bill C-31 is what we are debating now. One would think there would be a very strong connection to the budget. That is what the point is; these are implementation of the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for sharing her time with me. Unfortunately, I disagree with her last comment that we have time to debate the bill now. Given the gag order, enough time to debate the bill is exactly what we do not have. [ English ] I want to speak to what is happening here. I am going to throw in Bill C-30, because I was not allowed to speak to it. We rushed through it so fast that I did not get a speech at second reading. For Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, back-to-back omnibus budget bills, both had a reduction of debate. Due to the newly minted majority Liberal government, we were not given the normal amount of time to have debate before moving to the vote at second reading. I am sure the Speaker recognizes how often I have raised this concern in the House. It has accelerated.”
“They ask that the Government of Canada focus on adaptation measures, at least equally with other measures, to reduce emissions.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the petition I am honoured to present today, petitioners note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has pointed out that the impacts of climate change disproportionately hit those portions of the world that have contributed least to the problem in the global south. Particularly, the petitioners point out that the damage that will be done will also reverberate to Canada and that climate impacts through extreme weather events and loss of food production will contribute to 100 million more people living in poverty globally by 2030. The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada ensure that the limited amount of global finances should be expanded so that we can do more as an industrialized country that has contributed to the problem.”
“Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to urge the National Gallery of Canada to redress this and hold an exhibition for Canadians on the lifetime work of Robert Bateman.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a true honour, as always, to stand in this place, particularly with the petition I am presenting today, which concerns one of my constituents. I know I am just to present the petition, so with a tiny bit of latitude I would like to say that Robert Bateman's birthday was last week. He is one of Canada's most extraordinary wildlife artists. The petitioners from Saanich—Gulf Islands are asking that the government speak to the National Gallery of Canada. Obviously, the National Gallery is independently run, and the petitioners know this, but they point out the shocking reality that even though its mandate is to showcase artists who contribute significantly to Canadian culture and identity, Mr. Robert Bateman's work has never been exhibited there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Edmonton Strathcona, not just for today's speech but for absolutely everything. I do not always get to put a question to her, and she is stalwart on so many issues that it would take my time in a question just to list them. My question is this: Is the member also struggling, as I am, to understand why we have now received a 331-page, part 2 budget bill, Bill C-31 , and what within it has attracted her attention other than the macro-level issues she addressed in her speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. My question is about the last part of his speech, when he talked about the difference between a minority and a majority Parliament, from a democracy standpoint. Some citizens, some Quebeckers, do believe that it is better if the government has a majority. Why is a minority government better for democracy?”
“Mr. Chair, with all due respect, it is not adequate. If the main estimates discussion tonight ends up being a cry for help, that this is not adequate, that should be taken to the cabinet table. It is not adequate.”
“Mr. Chair, as the minister hears from every corner of the House, there is deep concern that her department is not delivering for the safety and security of Canadians, but my concern is far more that we are not delivering on our own reputation for being compassionate and humanitarian people. Will the minister agree that much more needs to be done, and is there a timeline and a strategy to deliver on these concerns?”
“Mr. Chair, does the minister believe there is a lack of financial resources to her department? Is it a lack of people power that makes this a grinding misery for so many people who either are here and wanting their permanent residency or are overseas and wanting to come here?”
“Mr. Chair, it should not be so difficult when people are living in Canada as permanent residents and want to bring their parents here on a TRV to visit their grandchildren. Why is that so bottlenecked?”
“Mr. Chair, another big concern for my constituents is the home care worker program. The home care worker immigration pilot, as the minister knows, was opened in March 2025 and closed soon thereafter. We understand from her department that it has been paused. When will it restart?”
“Mr. Chair, we know that we want to attract, as the minister has mentioned tonight, skilled and talented people, new Canadians who bring the talents and skills we need, but this is not just a compassion exercise. This is also a steep competition. It was recently pointed out in Policy Options magazine, just last month, that Canada risks discovering too late that the real consequences of a burdensome and cumbersome process are not just delayed applications but losing eligible and desirable people, who go elsewhere.”
“Mr. Chair, I consider myself at least bicoastal, having spent much of my life on Cape Breton Island. I also went to Dalhousie law school, so I am at least partially Haligonian. I hear a lot of concerns from my constituents. My constituency office is pretty much overwhelmed with people who need help as they are caught up in the long delays of trying to get processed by IRCC. It is not uncommon for security assessments to take several years, and we know that a lot of the international partnering agencies that work with IRCC create tremendous bottlenecks. What is the department planning to do to expedite the process and to find a better balance between security and compassion?”
“Is the department considering that it is long since time to recognize that the United States is no longer a safe third country after ICE has arrested over 900 children who have been held for more than 20 days?”
“Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East . I want to say that moments of tonight's discussions have been encouraging. After the horrors of the passage of Bill C-12 and international condemnation that it attacks refugee rights, it was so refreshing that some of the points I was going to make were made by the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard on the long delays in getting people out of Gaza and out of the horrible situations found in Sudan. Also, it was wonderful to hear the words one wants to hear of compassion from a Canadian from the hon. member for Spadina—Harbourfront . My question to the minister is the following.”
“The federal government should be in court every step of the way, joining with the Mikisew Cree and others in ensuring an injunction against the very idea that lands that were committed to indigenous peoples before the province of Alberta existed are protected, and treaty rights protect us all and protect Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left, first of all, I want to thank to the hon. representative of the government here in the House. This was very helpful. I think we need to, as Canadians, as settler culture people, understand how profoundly fortunate we are that indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. With the honour of the Crown being at stake, the treaties achieved by the treaty peoples of Alberta with the Crown and the indigenous nations of Alberta with the Crown are probably our best way to hold the country together.”
“As I mentioned, David Parker is one of the leaders of the separatist movement in Alberta. Would he be concerned, I ask, about advice from Elections Alberta on how to conduct himself? He is not going to be concerned. He has already described Elections Alberta as an “evil” institution. This is extraordinary. The privacy breaches that have occurred in Alberta should make everyone very concerned. We have heard from a Canadian leading expert in national security, Wesley Wark, whose name is known to all of us. From 2005 to 2009, he was a two-term adviser to the prime minister on national security. He has expressed significant concern about what could happen in an Alberta referendum and how we can ensure there is not foreign interference and also domestic interference, such as happened in Brexit.”
“There is an extremely good film that explains all this in Hollywood fashion, but it is rooted in facts and very well done. It is called Brexit: The Uncivil War with Benedict Cumberbatch. It is absolutely terrifying to watch because it reminds us of what we watched in real time as Britain was divided and people believed absolute nonsense because they were convinced it was the truth. We now have a situation where we know for a fact that David Parker, one of the leaders of the Centurion Project, is behind a major data breach. Alberta voter information was put up on public websites. Our former colleague in this place and former premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, is very concerned, and for very good reason. This information included a lot of private information put up in public places.”
“Since I asked the question on February 12, we now know that the Alberta premier has said she is going to put forward a question about a question, which is murky, confusing and opening up a can of worms. I think a lot of us are holding our breath and hoping she will not do the same thing that David Cameron did when he fatefully and idiotically appeased a small group of his own caucus by deciding to hold a referendum on the U.K. leaving the European Union, and did so absolutely confident that it could not possibly carry because the public opinion showed the vast majority of the people of England and Wales liked being part of the EU. That was before we heard names like Cambridge Analytica and found out how effectively algorithms and data mining could be used to convince people.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I initially asked on February 12 of this year, and it is one about which, regardless of party, I think most people in this House are concerned. The question I asked related to knowing the concern we have in this place of foreign interference in elections and, particularly, the experience we have had on many issues that were brought to light by Madam Justice Hogue. I raised the issue of what would happen if there were efforts, potentially from the United States and other countries, to manipulate a potential Alberta referendum. The response I got from the hon. minister was not out of sympathy with the issue I raised. Of course, there is not a complete answer for any of us at this point. We know that Elections Alberta would be in charge of any potential referendum.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also agree with what my colleague said about today's motion. It is a mystery to me. I do not understand why anyone would oppose this tax, which is already enshrined in Canadian law, when big foreign companies like Netflix and others do not pay taxes in Canada. At the same time, they are making over $2 billion or $3 billion in profit—”
“What I am wondering, given that the changes are so rapid, is this: What does the member believe is the most important thing we can do to ensure that the big online streaming platforms hire more Canadian talent, hire more Canadian actors and pay them at scale instead of lesser wages while they bring in U.S. stars to sprinkle the programming?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a relatively new member of the House. [ Translation ] I want to congratulate my colleague on her French. I think she has improved considerably. That is something I had to work on as well. My goal is still to become truly bilingual. [ English ] Online streaming, as the member said, is a relatively new concept. Those of us who are older, and I will put myself in that category, did not grow up with the concept. We would not have known what anyone was talking about. We had television, and the big innovation when I was a kid was that we could get it in colour. I want to ask this again.”
“(1700) [ English ] The only question I would have would be to give the member one more chance to tell us, of all the extraordinary things he has accomplished in his service to this place, what achievement he is most proud of or would want us to remember.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague and dear friend, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I just want to say that it is an honour to work with him here. We have been friends for a long time, of course. It was an honour to work together as MPs in the House. It is a great honour for me. It is true that I will miss him here in Parliament, but I know that we will continue to work together. [ English ] I do not know in what fashion, I do not know how, but I know that courage should be respected regardless of views. What we are dealing with is a crisis, but it is heartbreaking in this moment. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the residents of Laurier—Sainte-Marie for their wisdom in electing him as their MP.”
“Petitioners have calculated the inflation-adjusted 2025 value of where the benefit was in 1998, so they are calling on the government to increase the CPP death benefit to $6,400 and to provide tax deductions and credits for families for funeral expenses and other final expenses, to help all Canadian families afford a dignified funeral and burial for their loved ones.”