Elizabeth May

“This bill hides a big change. Its summary leaves out that it cancels the five-year end date on an earlier bill. This makes the government's harsh new powers permanent instead of temporary. I want the member to explain how that will affect us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest again on her recent election. Knowing she has not read as many bills as I have in this place, I will say that I have never seen a bill drafted to be as deceitful as this one. I want to put it to her that it is odd that in the summary of what we can expect in the bill, page ii notes that division 2 of part 1 would amend the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5, to say, among other things, in section 99, that the sunset clause on bill C-5, the part that says that this bill would not have an effect five years from this date, would be repealed. It lists four things of less consequence than this one it does not mention. Does my colleague have any comments on the impact of making the draconian power grabs of Bill C-5 permanent?”

“I am presenting a petition to protect endangered killer whales from ship noise and traffic. The petitioners wanted boats to stay 1,000 metres away from the whales. The government has already made that rule, and I thank them for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House to present a petition of deep concern to constituents. It relates to the very pressing issue of the critically endangered population of southern resident killer whales. The petitioners note that with the expansion at Roberts Bank, which is a very devastating ecological project, as well as the increased oil tanker traffic, there is a need to protect whales. Their habitat shrinks when they are in an acoustic environment, when there is noise and there are vessels too close. I know I have summarized. However, unusually, the key action component of the petition I am presenting has been acted upon, so I now add a note of thanks. The petitioners ask for the same distance requirements that Washington state put into place: that recreational and whale-watching vessels stay 1,000 metres back from this threatened population. In fact, the Government of Canada has now adopted the same regulations as Washington state. It is a rare occasion to present a petition and also thank the Government of Canada for acting on it.”

“Big banks promised over 100 trillion dollars for clean energy years ago, but they never delivered. Why should we believe the new investment promises made in Toronto will be any different?”

“Mr. Speaker, watching the recent investment summit, I had a sense of déjà vu. At COP26, then UN special envoy on climate finance, our current Prime Minister, announced the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. The world’s largest banks and investment firms committed over $100 trillion for the transition to net zero. Five years later, the only net zero is the investments promised by these firms. How will the investments promised at the recent Toronto summit differ from the Glasgow promises?”

“An earlier bill already lets the government ignore environmental laws for major projects. This new bill sits on top of that power. I want the Conservatives to acknowledge this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate briefly and ask my friend from Richmond a question. This entire debate around the environmental impacts is as though Bill C-5 never passed. Bill C-5 says the government can break any law it wants to, including the Species at Risk Act or the Impact Assessment Act, if a project is of national interest. I know my Conservative colleagues may not agree with me that this is a bad thing, but I wonder if the Conservative caucus has noticed that Bill C-5 would be on top of Bill C-39.”

“The government talks a lot about getting products to market, but they do not seem to understand what is actually in the west coast pipeline. It mostly carries diluted bitumen to China to pave roads, yet the government described it wrongly. Does the government really know what it is shipping?”

“Mr. Speaker, “getting products to market” is a repeated phrase, and one thing that shakes my confidence in the government was in the Canada Gazette. On August 1, when it posted about the west coast oil pipeline, it did not accurately describe, in a very short description, the product that will go in the pipeline. Similarly, as the Liberals talk about the product going to China in the pipeline, I will note that the diluted bitumen, which is actually the product used mostly in China, is the tar in the bitumen to pave roads. I wonder if the member would comment on the level of familiarity of the government benches with the products that are being shipped.”

“I oppose this bill. It weakens long-standing environmental laws by putting business costs ahead of protecting waters, fish, and endangered species. I want the member to explain how he can support this bill while ignoring an Indigenous court case against dredging that destroys protected habitat.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the member for North Vancouver—Capilano to the House. I suppose I could also welcome him to North Vancouver. I also was up and down the hills of North Vancouver quite a lot through the by-election, and I may have heard different things from the voters there. I do want to help the hon. member. This question was asked to my friend the member for Joliette—Manawan by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer: Where in the bill do we find retrenchments and abandonment of endangered species? It is riddled throughout the bill. It is changes in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, it is changes in the Fisheries Act and it is changes in the Species at Risk Act all around the idea that before conditions can be set, they would have to be examined for their practical feasibility and economic impact. This bill is nothing but a disgraceful abandonment of environmental regulation across Canada and decades of work. Since the hon. member references the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, how can he ignore, and does he ignore, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation court case against the dredging of Burrard Inlet, which would destroy habitat that the federal government committed to protect?”

“The Prime Minister promised to meet our climate targets, but he is planning to spend tens of billions of dollars on a pipeline instead. Before the government spends this money, I want them to show the House a business case or cost-benefit analysis for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Seniors for Climate Action members who came across Canada on the Seniors Climate Witness caravan and raised the issue of the climate crisis, just as scientists are raising it. The Prime Minister, on the floor of the House, committed on October 17, 2025, to meet the Paris targets. Ever since then, he has been galloping in a different direction. My question is simple: Before committing to spending tens of billions of dollars to build a climate-killing pipeline, will the government at least present to the House a cost-benefit analysis, a pretense, even, of a business case that this has any place in our strategy?”

“The Liberals broke their promise and cut 2.7 billion dollars in aid to poor countries. Also, most of the 714 billion dollars in the Canada Pension Plan is invested outside our country, mostly in the United States. I want us to change the law so that money is invested here in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek cited some relatively small amounts of money that have been sent overseas to the poorest of the poor. I do not know if he is aware that the Liberals broke their election platform promise to not cut foreign assistance, and they took another page out of the Conservatives’ platform by cutting $2.7 billion from overseas development assistance. Does my colleague agree that we should make sure that the Canadian pension plan, the over $714 billion that we have contributed over our working lives, is invested in Canada? The majority of it is not invested in Canada. A great deal is invested in the U.S. Should we not repatriate that with a change to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act?”

“The room was too loud during members' statements. A member was talking about people running from wildfires, and we could barely hear her. People need to be quiet and show respect.”

“Mr. Speaker, during members’ statements, the S.O. 31 section, the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay was valiantly trying to make an important statement about what had happened in her community this summer. I could barely hear her for the noise from the general hubbub. It was not malicious noise; it was just noise. I know you try Mr. Speaker, but really I felt so badly for the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. I do not know if she wants to try again, probably not, but please, when someone is talking about a heart-wrenching situation where people are running for their lives from wildfire, people should show respect.”

“The government set its goal of 500,000 immigrants a year based on advice from a private consulting company. Parliament never debated or studied this. The government relies too much on outside consultants. I want to know what progress we have made in stopping the use of these consultants.”

“Mr. Speaker, I like it when I can agree with my friend from Calgary Nose Hill. It does not happen all the time, but I always like it when we agree. One of the things I found maddening was when I discovered that the target for immigration of half a million people a year adopted by the previous government was a recommendation that came out of the blue from McKinsey. We are hiring management consultants. We never had a debate in this place about it. Canadians might think that if a target was set of half a million people a year, we must have had a committee study and it must have been in Parliament. Does my friend from Calgary Nose Hill have any updates on how we are doing in getting rid of consultants?”