Elizabeth May

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 35 wordsit is a great honour, not just a pleasure, to rise today to speak to Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.¹Greeting Claims · 15 wordsWe are told that this bill is absolutely necessary to implement the spring economic update. Procedure · 9 wordsBefore I get too far into discussing Bill C-30, ProcedureThanks · 24 wordsbecause it is my last chance to speak in this session of Parliament until September, I do want to acknowledge once again, and recognize, ThanksClaims · 23 wordsas I think we all do, that we are on and are honoured to be on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.Unearned certainty Thanks · 30 wordsWe give them enormous thanks, a huge meegwetch, for patience and tolerance with us. I do not get many opportunities to thank the people I need to thank the most.Thanks Claims · 54 wordsWe are the only party in the House that does not receive a penny of support from the parliamentary budget, being both unrecognized and unfavoured.² 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.³ I have less money, Anecdote · 9 wordsbut I am here, and I am not alone.Anecdote Claims · 27 wordsWe present more amendments on more bills than much larger parties do, not because we want to be meddlesome but because we want to do the work. Thanks · 32 wordsI particularly want to stop for a moment to thank my chief of staff, Debra Eindiguer, and my legislative director, Steven Parkinson. They work harder than any team, and they are non-partisan.Thanks Anecdote · 21 wordsI have never even stopped to ask the people on my staff team if they joined the Green Party or not, AnecdoteReasoning · 18 wordsbecause our job is to work for the people who elected us and for the people of Canada. Thanks · 58 wordsIn the same vein, I am very grateful to everyone on my MP team here in Ottawa, Michelle and Anna; and also, of course, in my Saanich—Gulf Islands constituency office. They all work very hard, and it is their work that allows me to stand here before us today to speak to the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30.Thanks Procedure · 7 wordsI have two objections to the bill.Procedure Positioning · 18 wordsThere are reasons I find this process an offence to democracy, and reasons I find the bill offensive, PositioningProcedure · 6 wordsbut there are two big categories.Procedure Claims · 48 wordsThe first is that it is an omnibus budget bill. I would suggest it is even improperly considered an omnibus budget bill. There is also the fact that it has been subject to bulldozer practices to accelerate it to the point that it has not been properly studied. Procedure · 5 wordsWhat is an omnibus bill?Procedure Claims · 28 words“Omnibus” is from the Latin. “Omni” means that it is a lot of things. An omnibus bill is a lot of things all at once in one package. Positioning · 9 wordsIt is the good, the bad and the ugly.Positioning Claims · 6 wordsIt is all in one bill. Reasoning · 29 wordsThis makes it difficult for members of Parliament, because inevitably and invariably, as is the case for me right now with Bill C-30, there are things that I like. Procedure · 23 wordsI will call those the good, and I will discuss what those are. Then there is the bad, and there is the ugly.Procedure Reasoning · 26 wordsWhat is really offensive in this kind of process is when the bill is not split up so it could be studied by committees with expertise. Aside · 37 wordsWe do not actually have committees called the “we will study all the bad things committee” and the “we will study all the ugly things committee” so we could send the ugly things to the ugly committee.Aside Reasoning · 35 wordsIf there are changes to the environmental standards in this country or to health standards, from my point of view as a parliamentarian, those should go to the committees that have expertise in environmental health. Claims · 48 wordsThat is not the case here. Everything in the bill, whether it was about privatizing airports, getting skilled workers, getting rid of the excise tax or really drastically reducing protection from dangerous pesticides, went only to the finance committee, and the finance committee was given very little time. Procedure · 8 wordsHow did the bill get to the committee?Procedure Claims · 76 wordsAfter first reading of the bill, which was on April 29, the day after the spring economic statement was tabled, there were only three hours of debate in this place before the government brought forward a motion for time allocation on May 25.⁴⁵ I had not been able to get a speech in at second reading, and then the bill was passed on division.⁶ There was no recorded vote. Off the bill then went to committee. Procedure · 6 wordsWhich committee did it go to?Procedure Claims · 6 wordsIt went to the finance committee.⁷ Procedure · 7 wordsI have nothing against the finance committee.Procedure Claims · 22 wordsI have spent a lot of time with it these last few weeks, hoping to be able to speak to my amendments. Reasoning · 26 wordsHowever, it was quite wrong, in principle, to send it to a committee that does not have any expertise and that did not have the time, Claims · 25 wordsbecause of the rush, to hear from a single witness in key areas where scientific knowledge, background and independent expertise could be brought to bear.⁸ Procedure · 20 wordsLet me just go back to the theme of the good, the bad and the ugly and take that apart.Procedure Claims · 138 wordsFor the good, I was very pleased to see in the spring economic statement and in the funding, funding for endangered species, particularly the southern resident killer whale. My pleasure in seeing that in the spring economic statement was somewhat, or profoundly, undone by a May 8 discussion paper that suggested that the provisions of the Species at Risk Act would be lifted to allow the extinction of species.⁹ Particularly at threat are the southern resident killer whales because they are in the way of more tankers and pipelines and such, but it was good to see reference to whales in particular in the spring economic statement. I am also relieved, having mentioned the May 8 discussion documents, and I will not mention them again, that the discussion period has been extended from June 7 to July 22.¹⁰ The ask · 14 wordsI urge Canadians who are concerned to get their thoughts in to the government. Positioning · 30 wordsLet us hope that we do not see legislation in this place implementing anything that was in those discussions documents when we resume the sittings of the House in September.Positioning Claims · 83 wordsAlso good in the spring economic statement, which is also found in the legislation, is the re-establishment of incentives for electric vehicles.¹¹ There are few things for which I would say, “Yes, I would certainly vote for that, and I am pleased to see it.” However, we do not see any details here. One line in the spring economic statement says, “Flexible pathways for automakers to meet Canada’s climate objectives”.¹² We have not seen any details on that yet, but we hope to. Procedure · 4 wordsThere are other things.Procedure Claims · 22 wordsCertainly we are in favour of protecting auto workers with a worker retention grant and anything to do to help with housing, Reasoning · 33 wordsand that makes it difficult. We have to vote against Bill C-22 because the bad and the ugly are thrown into the same pot, and we have to vote on that one pot. Procedure · 18 wordsNow, I mentioned casually a moment ago that I do not think this is a legitimate omnibus bill.Procedure Reasoning · 21 wordsTo be a legitimate omnibus bill, all the measures in the bill must relate to the budget in a fundamental way. Claims · 88 wordsI suggest that it is pretty sketchy that there is only one quite anodyne line to be found in the whole spring economic statement as a justification for the worst thing I have ever seen in an omnibus bill, which is the deregulation of pesticides. That is found on page 96 of the spring economic statement, ¹³and it only says, “Announces the government’s intention to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include consideration of food security and cost of food”. Anecdote · 69 wordsIn reading that on that day, on April 28, I certainly did not say, “Oh my goodness, ‘consideration of food security and cost of food’ must mean that the government is about to put something in that will allow cabinet as a whole, with political consideration, to overturn a decision of the minister and the department responsible after they have done a study on the danger of a pesticide.”Anecdote Claims · 31 wordsIt does not leap out at one. In fact, it is hidden. Not only does it not leap out; it is hiding, as it is in Bill C-30 in division 8.¹⁴ Procedure · 19 wordsThat is not the only thing I want to concentrate on, although I will take most of the time, ProcedureThanks · 17 wordsand I am grateful for the chance to speak to this bill now, finally, in this place.Thanks Claims · 34 wordsRegarding the removal of the excise tax, I have asked before about this in question period. The excise tax, I realize, is announced as a way of alleviating pressure and helping Canadians with affordability. Positioning · 6 wordsGreens really recognize the affordability crisis.Positioning Reasoning · 33 wordsWe see it as absolutely connected to the climate crisis. The cost of food goes up when crops fail because of climate disasters and extreme drought here in Canada and around the world. Claims · 99 wordsThere is an affordability crisis. The cost of housing is increasingly out of reach. With respect to the cost of energy and electricity in our homes, we could have virtually free electricity once we install the infrastructure. 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. There is a discussion paper out on an east-west electricity grid, Reasoning · 18 wordsbut to build that out, we really need to shift off of fossil fuels and on to renewables. Procedure · 12 wordsAnother point I want to make about the excise tax is that, ProcedureClaims · 208 wordsand this goes back to 2009, former prime minister Stephen Harper took the gas tax, which it was then called, and decided to make that fund permanent and at the disposal of municipalities for transit and infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities never ceases to point out that municipalities need predictable, stable funding. One of the best things Stephen Harper did was to say that the excise gas tax was a permanent source of funding for municipalities for transit and infrastructure.¹⁵ Bill C-30 and the spring economic statement does away with that. The Liberals say, “We are going to have this municipal fund. We are going to help with infrastructure for municipalities.” I was just in Edmonton at the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.¹⁶ They do not find the pathway to be clear. There is no map. It is not an easy route to navigate for local governments to figure out if it really replaces what they had in the transit funding and how they get from here to there. While they are building housing, and by the way, we cannot build a house unless we can flush the toilets in that house, municipalities are crying out for predictable funding for water and waste water. Positioning · 13 wordsI would love to have seen that clearly in the spring economic statement.Positioning Claims · 18 wordsWe are getting rid of a predictable fund, created under Stephen Harper for municipalities for transit and infrastructure, Positioning · 63 wordsand we have replaced it with press releases. I really hope the government means it and the money will be there for municipalities. I also hope that the Liberals will very quickly start to recognize that the local orders of government are the strongest and best partners we are going to find. They are more reliable than the Prime Minister’s friend Danielle Smith.¹⁷Positioning Claims · 70 wordsThey show up, they have shovel-ready projects, they are ready to go, and they keep their promises. I was in Edmonton. I cannot quote any mayor in particular, nor what I want to, as it would not be fair, but they certainly do not feel the love right now. They do not feel that they are engaged as partners, and they do not know where to find municipal infrastructure funding. Procedure · 10 wordsWe will move along to division 8 of Bill C-30, ProcedureClaims · 46 wordswhich is the most hidden and ugliest part of this omnibus budget bill. It is the reductions of protection for Canadians’ health and the environment in the regulations made under the Pest Control Products Act. All of this appears to rest on one unproven, untested assumption. Reasoning · 30 wordsThere 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: Claims · 12 wordsMore pesticides are going to reduce food prices and help the economy. Reasoning · 25 wordsThat is a leap. Let us say that is wrong, based on the evidence, in two ways. It is wrong on trade and on ecosystems. Claims · 208 wordsOn trade, our partners and allies have stricter pesticide laws than we do. As a matter of fact, historically, Canada has the weakest pesticide laws of our allies. By the way, just as an example, we were the only country in the world, well, certainly the only country in the G20, that never banned Agent Orange.¹⁸ We never banned 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or 2,4,5-T, which was half of Agent Orange. It remained legal in Canada until there was an agreement between the U.S. EPA and Dow Chemical to not allow it to export it anymore because it was too dangerous.¹⁹ Canada kept saying it was okay, but Canadian buyers could not get any because Dow Chemical was not, by law, allowed to export its remaining stocks anywhere. I am thankful for this because we would have kept it registered forever, as far as I can see. We continue to use glyphosate while the EU is restricting it.²⁰ We also continue to use neonicotinoid insecticides. In terms of trade, it means that Canadian food exports, grain exports, have been rejected at the border in France and in other EU countries because the residues of pesticides that are legal in Canada on our food crops are not legal in the EU.²¹ Reasoning · 68 wordsWe should strive to have the same high standards as the highest standards found around the world, so there would be no country where Canadian exports would be rejected at the border because they have too many toxic chemicals in the residues. That would be, I think, a good place to go to ensure that we are providing good trade links and reliable export markets for Canadian farmers, Claims · 312 wordsbut we do not. Of course, the reason Canadian beef is not allowed in many EU countries is that, years ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, found that the hormones injected into Canadian beef increase the risks of human cancer.²² That is why we lose markets there. We should strive to ensure that we have reliable and certified organic markets for the growth and production of food products so that we have markets in countries that have stricter standards for health protection than we do. We are not doing that; we are going in the other direction. It is astonishing to me that, when we think about food security, we are not talking about indigenous communities. Food security often means being able to access food off the land. I will use as an example the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, ²³which has been doing extensive work on restoring the ecosystem health of Burrard Inlet. It has been planting eelgrass and doing much work in what had been an industrial setting to get it clean and healthy enough to produce shellfish that can be harvested for human consumption, which is a right the Tsleil-Waututh Nation has. Quite casually, we keep hearing from government ministers, both in British Columbia and Ottawa, that we can dredge the Vancouver harbour. This has been thrown about as if it were a great idea, without any consideration. They have not talked with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. If we dredge the Vancouver harbour, we are going to stir up 100 years’ worth of heavy metals and toxic chemicals. It is not going to be possible to harvest shellfish from an area where 100 years’ worth of industrial waste was stirred up so we could move bigger tankers loaded with dilbit, which is a mixture that cannot be cleaned up if it is spilled. Positioning · 4 wordsThis is all madness.Positioning Reasoning · 19 wordsIt is not food security for first nations if we keep contaminating the territories where they harvest their food. Procedure · 8 wordsI will come back to the ecosystem issue.Procedure Reasoning · 18 wordsI think it is nonsense that this would help food production because food production in agriculture needs pollinators. Claims · 108 wordsThe reason the EU has reduced neonicotinoid insecticides is that the insect pollinator population is going down, which is related to the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids. Bill C-30 has now gone through clause-by-clause and has received all of the amendments it is going to get.²⁴ It says that, if the government agency decides it is too dangerous for the environment to use this particular pesticide, and it does not set out the criteria but gives the vaguest of language, cabinet, if it decides in its political discretion to “protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”, would allow a dangerous pesticide to be used.²⁵ Positioning · 3 wordsSo be it.Positioning Claims · 16 wordsThere is no appeal. That is it, and an extension can last up to nine years.²⁶ Positioning · 7 wordsI am incensed that this is happening.Positioning Procedure · 48 wordsIf people think there has never been a time in Canada where anyone would ever put the economic interests of an industry ahead of human health and safety, let me quote from 1976 and the then minister of natural resources for the province of New Brunswick, Roland Boudreau.Procedure Claims · 79 wordsWhen 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.²⁷ This is one of the things I really wouldn’t like to see. But at the same time, knowing the forest as it is, my decision will have to be with the forest and with the future of New Brunswick.” We are opening the door and going backwards. Procedure · 12 wordsIs there any other country on earth going backwards on pesticide regulation?Procedure Aside · 4 wordsMembers have guessed it.Aside Claims · 59 wordsIt is the Trump White House. This story is from the New York Times on May 7. It states, “Trump Administration Lifts Ban on ‘Cyanide Bombs’ on Public Lands”.²⁸ It did that so it could kill coyotes. In this country, even without Bill C-30, the PMRA reversed itself to allow for liquid strychnine to kill gophers on prairie lands.²⁹ Reasoning · 9 wordsWe need more protection for human health, not less. The ask · 19 wordsIf the government tells us that it wants to build Canada strong, then it must stop and think twice. Positioning · 17 wordsIt is killing the precautionary principle and running the risk of killing Canadians. This is not hyperbole.Positioning Claims · 6 wordsIt has happened in the past. Positioning · 28 wordsThe government and the right hon. Prime Minister are opening the door to the most regressive policies Canada has ever seen to protect human health and the environment.Positioning Claims · 26 wordsIt is not even helpful for the economy, but they do not bother doing the studies. They just make the assumptions and issue the press releases.