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 9 of 22.
“[ English ] We know that Bill C-26 was the first attempt to have a cybersecurity framework for this country to protect Canadians and be prepared for the numerous ways in which we need a proper framework for cybersecurity. Bill C-8 is an improvement over Bill C-26. There is more transparency. Improvements have been made, and there is more clarity around the question of what is essential infrastructure for Canadians in this area. Bill C-8 is an omnibus bill that would create an entirely new act, the critical cyber-systems protection act, and amend many other acts.”
“They do not question it or realize that what they are doing is reducing my rights as a member of Parliament. I have more rights if they do not pass that motion in committee, but it is now a mindless procedure. They never call me beforehand to ask how it would affect my rights or if they should pass it or not. (1555) [ Translation ] Unfortunately, this is the situation facing members of parties with fewer than 12 seats. We are only allowed to present amendments at report stage, here in the House. The House is now considering Bill C-8 at third reading. Bill C-8, which we are debating in the House this afternoon, is virtually identical to Bill C-26 , but it includes certain improvements that were made to that bill, which could not be passed because the House was prorogued.”
“Even though we got through committee a number of strong amendments, at the end of the day, here in this chamber, an ex post facto change was made to the rulings that the majority of the committee members who had a vote, and, if we had had a vote, the other members of Parliament who were sitting at the table and presenting amendments, would have concurred in. It is a strange road that leads me to every single committee on almost every piece of legislation when it gets to clause-by-clause to try to improve the legislation. As a right, I should not have to run from committee to committee. I should be able to make my amendments at report stage in one room, rather than sometimes simultaneously running from committee to committee. I raise this because members of committee now routinely pass a motion sent down to them from on high.”
“This is all to say that this process, in the case of Bill C-8 , gave me a front-row seat to really good, strong attempts by Conservative members of Parliament, by the Bloc Québécois, by one NDP member in the same situation I am in and by a number of Green Party amendments that were put forward to try to improve the act. It is worth noting at this point that it represents four of the five parties that serve in this Parliament, working together to try to improve the legislation, with the governing party members opposing.”
“Rather than change the rules, they came up with a simple expedient: Tell every committee to pass an identical motion to say members of Parliament serving in a party of fewer than 12 MPs or as independents would be given a short timeline of 24 hours' notice to present amendments at committee which are deemed to have been tabled. This was because, as non-committee members, we do not have the right to argue for our amendments, except during a one-minute period. We also do not have the right to withdraw our amendments, but the deemed presentation of our amendments occurs. I have spent days in committees at clause-by-clause, waiting hours for the one chance I have to present one amendment and argue for it for a minute.”
“Why it does not happen goes back to a long story, and I do not want to lose my time to discuss Bill C-8 by explaining this. Back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the governing party objected to my efforts to try to protect environmental legislation in an omnibus budget bill in the spring of 2012. I presented amendments on the floor of the House at report stage. Long story short, the Prime Minister's Office of the day decided it was too much trouble to change the rules to deprive members of Parliament in a situation such as my own, which is now a situation the NDP finds itself in. Not long ago in the past, the Bloc Québécois was in the same situation.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-8 this afternoon. I have a few comments regarding the substance of the bill, but in light of the previous speeches, I think I can clarify the situation regarding unrecognized parties, although it is a bit complicated. [ English ] The reality of it is that we do not have to change our rules, but I share with my other colleagues that we have the right, as members of Parliament in parties with fewer than 12 MPs, under our standing rules and procedures of Parliament to stand in this place at report stage and present and debate substantive amendments. That is as a right, not as a favour on unanimous consent. That right we have at report stage is one that exists in our rules.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon. I am a member of the House, but I am not a member of a committee. I want to add a few words to support the position of my colleague and friend from the Bloc Québécois, because it is not just the majority of the committee members who accepted the amendments. There are also two other parties in the House whose members cannot vote in committee. The NDP member for Vancouver East and myself, from the Green Party, also agree with the changes that were made by the committee following clause-by-clause consideration but that were ruled out of order by the Speaker of the House. I simply want to add that I think the majority, plus two other members, agree that the bill should be improved.”
“Mr. Speaker, members of my constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as many adjacent areas, are very concerned about the fate of the southern resident killer whale, an extremely endangered species. These petitioners point out that once the whales swim to their other areas of occupation here and there, they are in Washington state. Washington state has far better protections for southern resident killer whales and other whales than we do in Canada. The petitioners call on the Minister of Transport to implement mandatory vessel distance regulations to keep recreational and commercial vessels at least 1,000 metres away from the highly endangered southern resident killer whales. This is what they do in Washington state. This is one instance in which we should do something they do south of the border.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate today, there have been a number of good points made by members on all sides, honestly, but one of the things that continue to trouble me is that we are not actually putting Canada first in our investments. I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary would consider raising within his caucus that it is time to reform the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act so that our pension funds are invested in Canada and not as they are now, which is more in the United States than here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not be voting for the motion before us today, but I do agree with the hon. member that we need to find ways to ensure that Canadian industries are put first and that we focus on Canada. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has looked at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Of the $80 billion in our pension plan investments, there is no consideration at all for investing in Canada. There is no priority for Canadian investments. In fact, most of those investments go to other countries, particularly the United States.”
“David Suzuki is much loved by millions of Canadians, and for good reason. His 90th birthday is today, and I wish him a happy birthday.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not in the next 60 seconds be able to do justice to the accomplishments of Dr. David Suzuki. Scientist, geneticist, broadcaster, author, educator and activist, David Suzuki has been a recipient of the highest citizen award in this country, the Companion of the Order of Canada. He has received awards from universities around the world too numerous to mention; awards from Japan, Australia, throughout Europe and from UNESCO and the United Nations; and the so-called alternative Nobel Prize, the Right Livelihood Award. As host of The Nature of Things for decades, he educated generations of Canadians, making and increasing our awareness that nature itself is a miracle. He has been, in his personal life, a devoted husband, father, grandfather and now great-grandfather.”
“The petitioners are asking the Minister of Finance to revise the criteria, review the real-life situation of Canadians living with disabilities and establish a new standard for tax exemptions to enable organizations to offer tax-free virtual support services and programs. It is a matter of essential justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present a petition on behalf of concerned constituents. They are concerned because, as we all know here, the poverty rates among people in the disabled community in Canada are shamefully high. The petitioners point out that after COVID, a lot of services that are essential for people in the disabled community are provided virtually, but the tax system has not caught up to this reality, so disabled Canadians are taxed on services that are a medical necessity. Prior to COVID, had they gone in person to receive them, they would have been tax-free.”
“Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not think I have seen this before, so perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary, at some point later in debate, or the Speaker can answer the question I have. Is it at all normal that we would have a point of order to review amendments after committee work has closed on Bill C-8 to ask if it is within scope? Those questions are usually taken up at the moment when the amendments are brought forward. The clerk of the committee and the chair of the committee judge whether the amendment proposed is within scope. I know retroactivity seems to be a big thing these days, and we just passed Bill C-4 , which came into effect 26 years ago, but I question the validity of this point of order.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will actually say this as a practising Christian. When they quote one part of the Bible, particularly Leviticus, where they go back and say, “It is not good to commit adultery, but it is okay if it is your slave girl,” there are some sections pulled out by themselves that one would not regard as inspirational or as the word of God. Let me just get that out of the way. The point of Bill C-9 , which the hon. member for Bow River put so well and which I believe is the core of the problem, is the uncertainty it would create. That is why I am voting against it. We need certainty. If we are going to fight hate crimes, the Criminal Code already provides us with the tools.”
“The petitioners call for Canada to increase our climate finance commitments towards the global south, providing more funding for adaptation and for projects that also advance a particularly targeted group within Canada and globally: Women are particularly impacted by the climate crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the many residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who raise the issue again of the climate crisis. In this context, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to recognize that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recognized how much the climate crisis accentuates and increases the societal divides globally, with the global south bearing much of the cost and the burden of climate events, and the urgent need for action to try to avoid more than 100 million people being pushed into poverty as a result of the industrialized world, including Canada's failure to act to pursue our Paris Agreement targets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear to the parliamentary secretary before that it would already be a hate crime to direct hatred and acts of hatred toward individuals or an identifiable group, whether they are practising a faith or are identifiable through other means. The legislation is poorly drafted, and I think the government members will rue the day they force it through.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong and I did have a personal conversation recently, in which she told me that people thought she should be in jail for that. For any speech, obviously, that would be appalling, and I hope the comments she related to me were meant not in earnest, but offhand, and that the members who might have said that deeply regret it, because it is offensive. As to the prayer breakfast and dinner, I will be there tonight, and I imagine a lot of us will be doing both.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where my hon. colleague is coming from, but no. As a fierce opposition party leader and someone who has deep concerns about the direction of the current government, I would say that it does not have an anti-faith group approach, absolutely not. The Prime Minister is a practising Catholic. I compared notes with him about what we have both given up for Lent. Let us stop thinking that anyone has anything against faith-based groups and work to defend every Canadian's ability, to the best of our ability, to live out their place in this life, for whatever purposes they see in this life. Let us do so for the good of all and stop finding reasons to divide us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not in receipt of Conservative fundraising emails, but I will say this: At this point in the history of our Parliament, we need to come together more and not seek reasons to divide. While I decry the use of partisan clickbait, I also decry notions about anyone in this country, regardless of their political party, faith or lack of faith. I am a practising Christian, but I praise all those atheists because, by God, they are great citizens too. We need to come together, and we need to defeat this bill and use section 319 to stop hate crimes, not—”
“Although I will say that the so-called industrial resource community group of the RCMP in British Columbia, which is cracking down on non-violent civil disobedience to protect old-growth forests, has frequently violated the charter. I look to them as a worrying example. Bill C-9 would not solve problems of hate crimes, and it would not give law enforcement new tools. Not only that, but it would create a morass. I am absolutely certain that if this law passes as is, it would waste police resources, waste court time and tie people up in knots in wrongful prosecutions for things that were never hate crimes at all. With that, I will vote against the bill.”
“We are seeing intrusions on civil liberties; they referenced particularly what we are seeing in the United States, with the U.S. administration's immigration and enforcement group, known as ICE, trampling on civil liberties. It is saying that a person was about to do something, that a person had hate in their heart or whatever. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group told our parliamentary committee that Canada must be very careful. We should not create offences that can be misunderstood. We should not make openings to have an overreach by law enforcement. We are seeing, in many countries around the world, overreach by law enforcement. They are anticipating something that I hope we never see in Canada.”
“How will law enforcement deal with a gathering in which a group of people spill onto a side street and do not realize that they might be impeding access to a church they did not know was there? As a lawyer, a civil libertarian and more than an occasional protester, I look at this bill with alarm. It is going to create a lot of confusion and potentially wrongful arrests. It has been referenced by some of my hon. colleagues on the Conservative benches that not only does every major religious group in this country express concerns about Bill C-9 , but so do the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Black Legal Action Centre. I particularly noted the brief to the committee from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which includes groups from around the world expressing concern.”
“I denounced Hezbollah for shooting rockets into Israel. I also denounced the use of rockets from Israel that were hitting civilian targets in Lebanon. After the rally, it came to my attention through social media that someone had gotten a photograph of me; I had not known about a Hezbollah flag behind me. I would not have recognized the Hezbollah flag if I had fallen into it, but as it was, it was behind me. I did not know it was there. It was clearly a hate symbol. However, not knowing it was there, I equally would not have known, standing there on the back of a flatbed truck, how close I was to a place of worship, a day care centre or a cemetery. I would have had no idea. When I first read Bill C-9 , I thought it was definitely going to impede freedom of assembly and rightful protest. It was going to be very confusing.”
“Law enforcement, lawyers and judges across the country have a pathway to know that they can prosecute hate crimes under the Criminal Code and not defy the charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this, and its rulings are clear. Unfortunately, Bill C-9 is not clear. Bill C-9 would create a whole new discretionary web of things that may or may not be criminal. (1345) I just want to refer briefly to a personal experience I had awhile ago. It was back in 2006. I was not in Parliament. I attended a rally to decry what was then happening. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . Israel was bombing Lebanon in an attempt to hit Hezbollah, and Hezbollah was bombing in Israel. I was at a peace rally in Toronto. I was on the back of a flatbed truck. I remember that Judy Rebick was standing with me.”
“The Supreme Court of Canada has already, in numerous decisions, dealt with the big problem that we have. When we are defining hate, when we say hate speech is a crime and when we say there is an identifiable group against whom this speech is directed, we might have this problem, something the courts identify and numerous people identify: What about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, what about our right to free speech, what about our right to worship as we choose and what about the right of freedom of assembly? I am now referring to section 319 of the Criminal Code against acts of hate. Do these criminal acts of hate conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Thankfully, in the Keegstra case, in a couple of places, the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with this.”
“These could create real problems that would end up before the courts and get in the way of making sure we have the proper tools to prosecute hate crimes with the laws we already have. Why do we have Bill C-9 ? Normally a bill of this weirdness would come because the courts had said something and the government felt compelled. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I have to adjust. The corner I am in is really difficult. I am sorry. I did not mean to complain about the furniture in the middle of a speech. Normally something like this that appears to be redundant, discretionary and confusing would come about because the Supreme Court has said something criticizing an existing law so that the Department of Justice tries to clarify the law with yet another law on the same subject. However, this is the opposite.”
“But Bill C-9 doesn’t solve this complex issue. Instead, it hands the government a blunt instrument that history tells us will be turned against the very people it’s supposed to help. Let me speak to what this is talking about. I oppose Bill C-9 . Yes, I am a practising Christian, and yes, I believe that the sacred texts of the Quran, the Torah or Bible are religious texts. They are not hate speech, but that is not my big problem with this bill, because I think it is very unlikely, no matter what anyone might say for partisan reasons, that anybody in the Liberal Party wants to prosecute a preacher. That is nonsense. What we are dealing with here, though, is a bill that is so unnecessary that it would create new risks, through vagueness and discretion.”
“We stand against it, but Bill C-9 has gotten in the way in a way that ties us in knots and is making it more difficult to use the tools we already have, such as section 319 of the Criminal Code. I will back up and say that I looked for the most recent statement, because there have been some amendments. I appreciate the amendment that says we would need the approval of an Attorney General to prosecute under this act, but that would not remedy the many faults of the bill. I looked for the most recent press release from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to make sure its views had not changed as a result of recent amendments. It says this very clearly, and I am going to quote from their most recent release: Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism are on the rise. Communities across this country are worried, and they deserve protection.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9 , the anti-hate bill. I will start by saying that I hate the bill. I do not know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Actually, I try not to hold hatred in my heart for any person, but I think when one sees really bad legislation, it is okay to hate it. This is really bad legislation because it has provoked a debate that pits people who should totally agree against each other. All of us in this place, whether Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc members or New Democrats, want to see an end to hatred in this country. We all see every day the dramatic increase in acts of hatred and anti-Semitism, particularly Islamophobia. It is racism. It is despicable.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition virtually today. [ English ] The petitioners expressed deep concern for the historic wrongs and injustices done to indigenous peoples by settler culture Canadians over the experience of colonization. To summarize, they specifically call on the government to follow through on the many long-overdue promises to implement the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the calls for justice from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission, and to follow closely our commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a timely petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will just quickly dispute the notion that we have brought more money into protest groups than Canada paid out. Canada paid out $8 million for a perfectly legal decision rendered by the federal Minister of Environment, John Baird at the time, and the Progressive Conservative provincial Minister of Environment for Nova Scotia. Bilcon of Delaware got away with murder and took our money.”
“Mr. Speaker, as with all our policies, the member can find it online. We support trade that is respectful of environmental protections, indigenous rights and labour rights, in other words, fair trade. In fact, for the record, we voted for the Canada-Ukraine trade deal when every single Conservative voted against it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, because the problem is that the major parties here, in this Parliament, despite their many political differences, all share the same high regard for big multinational companies, big oil and big pharma. (1555) [ English ] Big oil and big banks get the respect of Liberals and Conservatives always, regardless of who is leading the parties, which is at the base of giving them superior rights to Canadian corporations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. colleague from York—Durham that, for an absolute fact, there is absolutely nothing illegal about things the Canadian government has done for which we have ended up having to shell out money. As for being secret, I recommend that the member have a look at the Canada investment promotion and protection agreement with the People's Republic of China, which must remain entirely secret throughout the entire tribunal. The results may be made public by Canada at the end, but the fact of a challenge by the People's Republic of China against the Canadian government is secret and must remain secret. We are bound to it for 35 years without ever having had a vote in the House, because it was approved by Stephen Harper's cabinet.”
“[ English ] However, it is time to shine a light on them and decide that henceforth Canada should get out of agreements that allow foreign corporations to have more power to sue the Canadian government, a province, a first nation or a municipality, for that matter. These agreements are corrosive to democracy. It is time to shine a light on them and start carving them out. It has now become routine with trade deals to throw in investor-state dispute resolutions. They are noxious.”
“corporations will be able to sue Canada under the CPTPP, just as we are now allowing Peruvian or, more likely, Canadian companies to sue Peru if we are mining in their country and do not like the laws to which we are being subjected, will have less transparency than if we were working under the CETA. This is because there were enough elements that the European Union refused to pass the CETA as long as these investor-state dispute resolution measures were included. (1550) [ Translation ] I do not have much time left to wrap up my speech so I will end by saying that it is too late at this point to renegotiate and remove the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.”
“For example changing the regulations to protect the environment or changing the regulations to protect workers, if it costs them money, the Government of Canada is going to pay out and pay a company from the U.S, which has happened to Canada an unfortunate number of times. As we negotiate and discuss this agreement today, the CPTPP, it includes investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that are of an order that is slightly less fair and slightly less transparent than similar agreements that were negotiated with the European Union under the CETA. Between the two, they both have investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms, but the one we are debating today, to which we are adding the U.K. and which means U.K.”
“The investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms, as has been established through numerous global studies, tend to favour the larger economic power. It was a shocker when it first happened. This means that decisions and laws passed democratically by governments, whether at the provincial or federal level, could be overturned by secret tribunals run by for-profit secret lawyers who make a case and argue that something was done that cost the corporation money. They do not even have to allege that it was done with animus or that it was discriminatory towards that country or nation or corporation, just that it cost them money.”
“It said that if what a government does to a foreign corporation can be considered tantamount to expropriation, then that foreign corporation can sue the country in which it is operating. We have had S.D. Myers sue Canada. We had Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, sue Canada. Canada tends to lose on these challenges. Not only does Canada lose, but in general, the larger economic power wins. It is not always the corporation that wins, but if a U.S. corporation sues a government and the U.S. corporation is a giant, the U.S. corporation will win. If a Canadian corporation sues the U.S, the Canadian corporation will lose. There is a pattern. The larger economic power tends to win. The arbitrators are drawn from a rank of four. They are operating, $500 an hour, $1,000 an hour, lawyer kinds of people.”
“member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton has been the most engaged on this subject as we continue to debate it. I certainly agree with him and have always supported any efforts Canada can make to get out of such lopsided agreements, which inevitably, invariably and always give superior rights to foreign corporations investing in Canada or operating in Canada. Even if they do not invest, they can open up a post office box somewhere and be considered an investor. Private sector corporations are bestowed with rights under investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms and agreements, the very first of which, by the way, we are now out of, which was chapter 11 of NAFTA, which ironically did not survive into the new negotiations when it became CUSMA. I am very glad chapter 11 of NAFTA is no more, but it was a prototype. Here is what it did.”
“We have an existing trade agreement with the U.K., which is still called the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, but between Canada and the U.K. It is largely based on the previous agreement that was done with the European Union. Now we have the TPP and the CPTPP, which is without the United States but with the U.K. Why do I go through all this other than to remind people of the threads they may have heard before? It is because there are differences between these agreements, and one is less advantageous to Canada and Canada's environment than the other. Both the CPTPP, which we are debating today, and the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the CETA, include things called investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. (1545) The hon.”
“Canada's first trade deal with the U.K., back to this particular piece, was the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which was negotiated between Canada and the EU. Of course, part of the EU at that time was the U.K. Therefore, we had a lot of pre-existing negotiations and conversations, and then there was the TPP, which was negotiated without the U.K. but with the U.S. What are the differences between these two agreements? Do they entirely overlap since we already negotiated them? We went back once the U.K. left the European Union, and Canada renegotiated the bits we needed so that Canada would continue to have a trade deal with the U.K. once the U.K. left the European Union. That got done.”
“There is a tremendous documentary for people who want to see how vulnerable our democracies are to the misuse of social media and those kinds of campaigns. It is called Brexit: The Uncivil War . I am not going to give a whole film review, but it does star Benedict Cumberbatch, in case anyone wants to look it up on Netflix. Members can watch it, and for parliamentarians or someone who runs for elected office, it may leave them feeling quite shaken about how vulnerable we are to misinformation and how the British public was misled into pulling out of not just a very good trade agreement but a governance agreement within the European Union that had a lot of benefit for the U.K., and that also had benefit for the European Union when the U.K. was in it.”
“Of course, one of the instigators of the original trans-Pacific partnership agreement was the United States. However, back in President Trump's first term in 2017, he pulled the U.S. out of the trans-Pacific partnership. Going back to Canada's trade relationships with the U.K., this is obviously not the first or even the most important of Canada's trade agreements with the U.K. Again, this goes back to trade agreements that countries enter into, and then when somebody pulls out, the pieces have to sort of reassemble. Looking back at Canada's first trade agreement with the U.K., it was when the U.K. was part of the European Union, before the very tragic events that led to Brexit. For the U.K., and indeed the European Union, it was dreadful, with the skullduggery, the use of algorithms and social media, Cambridge Analytica and the sort.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for splitting his time with me. This is an alphabet soup, as people have mentioned. It is sometimes hard to see why the U.K. is suddenly joining the CPTPP and why we are discussing it today, but there are overlays and previous trade agreements. Perhaps something of a narrative might work to quickly review how we got to where we are today, and then I can highlight the concerns the Green Party has about it. The trans-Pacific partnership agreement started quite a long time ago. As others have mentioned, there is a long list of countries that were initially involved, all of course in the Pacific region. There is Singapore, Malaysia and Japan, but then there are ones we do not necessarily expect, such as Peru as well as Canada and New Zealand.”
“I will not say his riding name because it will take too long, but we tried really hard to hand it directly to the Prime Minister of the U.K. so we could say that this is so unfair. What do we do now? This agreement is in front of us. What can we all do collectively to push the government to get a proper deal with the U.K. government to defend our pensioners?”