These town halls are an opportunity for Elizabeth to meet her constituents and hear about their concerns and priorities. As well, she updates constituents about her actions and work in the House of Commons on their behalf.

These clips are from Elizabeth’s town hall on Galiano Island in January 2013.

CSIS

[GutCDKyDR-4]

Supporting Idle No More

[PNueBWaqqog]

Decorum in the House

[plu2vDdLb-k]

Electoral Cooperation

[vuHGFPQKJr0]

Legal Arbitration under FIPA

[b135tXwi2rY]

Omnibus Amendments

[9iuftndrK20]

The post Galiano Town Hall Videos appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to Standing Order 18 which indicates that no member shall speak disrespectfully of another member of this place when he or she is speaking. When the hon. member for Ahuntsic was asking her question, I heard a member, who I will not identify because I do not know who said it but it was said obviously to the member herself, clearly say the words “traitor in the House”.

All members of the House, no matter how much we may disagree with another member’s agenda, are duly elected and all equal in the House. I would like to remind members that that kind of language is incendiary and unacceptable in the House.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I echo her statements that inflammatory comments should not be made. In fact, no comments should be made when members are putting a question or answering a question, but especially those comments that could incite further unfestive activities that sometimes take place. It is certainly unparliamentary, that is for sure.

The post Point of Order appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I trespass on this very tentatively, but recall that the history of the length between these benches was to be two sword lengths. We would like the notion to be figurative. We do not like the notion that someone from one side of the House would march across to the other side.

I can only conclude the hon. government House leader is a sore winner. I hope we will never see this sort of thing again.

The post Points of Order – Decorum in the House appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we should not be allowed to speak about a carbon tax in the House now. Every member of Parliament is responsible to his or her constituents who, if they were faced with a $21.5 billion carbon tax, would have to pay that and their personal lives would be affected by it. Nothing could be more important for a member of Parliament than to stand up for constituents on issues like taxes. I cannot imagine why she would want to shut down that debate, other than she does not like it.

The Speaker: There have been previous Speaker rulings on what S. O. 31s should and should not be used for. I will go back and look at the particular S. O. 31 that the member has complained about and, if necessary, I will come back to the House after the Thanksgiving break.

The post Points of Order – Statements by Members appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[l2mu6pIQclE]

They are getting really quite despicable, for lack of a better word. I refer in particular to one yesterday by the member for Wild Rose, who used his S. O. 31 to attack me. In fact, I was flabbergasted by this. I am making more of a generic point that they are going downhill.

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member, I will read to her what Standing Order 31 actually says. It states:

A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute. The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.

There is nothing saying that the content must be local, there is nothing saying it must be national, there is nothing saying that it cannot touch on policy. There is broad scope and range to it. In fact, there is no limitation whatsoever, other than the Speaker’s normal ability to determine that something is unparliamentary. Therefore, I fail to see what she is complaining about.

I would add one final point. I can understand, perhaps having fewer members than some of the other parties, that she is frustrated that other people get to say more than her, but that is not a reason to try to suppress the rights of others to have their say in this place.

The post Points of Order – Statements by Members appeared first on Elizabeth May.

However, I recently learned that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has taken to Twitter to mislead Canadians about this bill. On September 19 she wrote, “If a peaceful event gets out of hand…and it’s winter…and you have a scarf on…20 years in jail?”

The member knows full well that this bill is not aimed in any way at lawful protestors and yet, here she is accusing me of trying to throw Frosty the Snowman in the big house.

It is time for this lone Green Party member to depart from her fairy tale lands because police chiefs across the country, including Victoria’s own Jamie Graham, are supporting this bill.

When it comes up for third reading, I encourage her to rise from this chamber’s 309th seat and vote in favour of Bill C-309.

The post Statements by Members – Concealment of Identity Act (Bill C-309) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We should be talking about the science. We should, as Parliamentarians, regardless of party, be acting responsibly as the evidence piles up. Every day it seems there is new evidence, always more worrying. Climate change is no longer creeping slowly. It is galloping, spurred on by dangerous feed-back loops. The Arctic ice is shrinking in ways that spell danger for all of us, permafrost is melting threatening the release of vast deposits of methane (a very powerful greenhouse gas), oceans are acidifying, food production is threatened, and around the world lives are lost in extreme events from floods to fires to mudslides to tropical storms and tornadoes. We should be talking about how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible in hopes of avoiding ever-more-likely runaway global warming. I don’t like thinking about- or worse, talking about, the worst case scenarios of global warming. But former French President Sarkozy was right: the survival of human civilization is at risk.

Those are not the words of the leaders of the mainstream parties. In the House, we get a Punch and Judy show of feigned outrage. Instead of talking about what we should be doing, the main parties are stuck in a Mobius loop of distortion. Yesterday, I couldn’t finish asking a question due to the heckling of the NDP caucus. What was the trigger for otherwise civil folks, many of them people I love, to act out so rudely? I had the effrontery to mention that there had once been a plan to meet Kyoto targets.

I did not do so to laud the Liberal record. The Liberal record is one of broken promises starting when Jean Chretien dumped the promise in the 1993 Red Book to reduce GHG by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. I am cursed with a good memory. I remember the day we found out Chretien would not allow the federal, provincial, multi-stakeholder taskforce even to analyze carbon taxes as a possible mechanism to meet the Liberal target. I remember his trip with Anne McLellan to the oil sands to drop a few billion and promise rapid development. I remember feeling like I’d just been sucker-punched. But it is absurd for the NDP to want to re-write history to say there was never a plan. I was about to say in the House, that the plan came very late – in spring 2005. But, again, I remember the struggle to get the plan approved. The day to day battle with Natural Resources Canada leaks, undermining Stéphane Dion and Environment Canada with daily front page stories in the Globe and Mail attacking a plan that was not even public yet. It was not a perfect plan. I would not have designed it the way it was designed. But, according to reliable experts, such as Pembina Institute, if the plan had been implemented, Canada would have come very close to our Kyoto targets. Of course, less than a year later, Stephen Harper killed it and the billions of dollars in programmes that had been in the 2005 budget.

The NDP is right to call out the Conservatives for lies claiming the NDP supports a carbon tax. As Jeffrey Simpson points out very clearly in today’s Globe, the cap and trade carbon pricing advocated by the NDP is no different from what Stephen Harper once said he would do.

On the other hand, while the Conservatives keep accusing the NDP of favouring a carbon tax, and the NDP deny it, what gets lost is that we actually need carbon pricing urgently – as in a decade ago. And even with a carbon price, whether through the free market mechanism of cap and trade or through the more efficient means of a revenue neutral carbon tax, we will need far more in programs, regulations, job-creating initiatives in energy efficiency and renewables, to have any hope of playing a responsible role in the world. Greens favour a carbon tax as the best way to reduce GHG and put money in the pockets of Canadians. On the other hand, if a cap and trade plan was properly designed, I wouldn’t oppose it. This is not Lilliput with a war over which end of the egg gets cracked. It should not be a phony fight over mechanisms. We should actually be talking about doing something.

And that is what is not being discussed. The Conservatives are telling lies about the NDP wanting a carbon tax and the NDP are telling a lie that there was never a Liberal carbon plan, and the Liberal attacks on Mulcair over his comments on Dutch disease (a reasonable issue for him to raise) are also spin over substance. It’s all spin.

It would be easy to say “a plague on all their houses.” But global warming is a plague on all our houses. We have to stop the spin and focus on what matters. Science is divided on whether we still have time. For my children’s sake I refuse to accept that it is too late. I will keep telling the truth about who did what and when, but history is just that. We better start talking about what we plan to do. NOW!

The post Climate change in the spin cycle appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ILwrQLoOIJI]

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to offer some supplementary comments to the point of order raised on Monday by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and further to the submissions that were just advanced by the House leader for the Liberal Party.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in her arguments went on to cite at some length some academics and some press clippings, but not really zeroing in on the full content of Speakers’ rulings.

She did reference a few Speakers’ rulings and did the odd selected quotation from them, but I think it would be useful for the House to hear some more complete citations or quotations from those decisions of the Chair that actually capture the essence of those decisions on how a bill such as Bill C-38 should be dealt with.

In the ruling on the 1982 energy bill, Madam Speaker Sauvé said, at page 15532 of Debates:

It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills, but in that case the House, and not the Speaker, must make those rules.

Therefore, having heard argument and having examined Bill C-94, I must now rule on the basis of existing precedents, which do not support the proposition that the bill should be divided or struck down.

I emphasize “or struck down” because that is what she is asking you to do in this case.

Madam Speaker Sauvé also ruled on June 20, 1983, at page 26538 of Debates, on the western grain transportation bill, as follows:

—although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice of incorporating several distinct principles into a single bill, they have consistently found that such bills are procedurally in order and properly before the House.

This bill does not even meet that test of distinct principles. It is all one principle, the implementation of our budget.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also quoted some decisions of Mr. Speaker Fraser, including one reference which even she acknowledged was “at best obiter dicta”.

In his June 8, 1988 ruling on the Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement, he cited the 1982 ruling of Madam Speaker Sauvé, who called it, at page 16257 of Debates, “the Chair’s traditional position”. That led Mr. Speaker Fraser to say:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair’s role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

He cited himself in his later rulings on April 1, 1992, at page 9149 of Debates, and December 7, 1992, at page 14735 of Debates.

Underpinning her submissions were what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands described as Mr. Speaker Lamoureux’s so-called misgivings in a January 26, 1971, ruling.

Let me add to the record the paragraph she left out on page 284 of the Journals, which immediately followed the one quoted by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The Speaker went on to say:

At the time, having now reached second reading and having had this bill before us for some time, I doubt whether we should take the very drastic and extreme position, as I suggest to hon. members it would be, of saying that this bill is not acceptable to the House, that it should not be put by the government and that it should not be considered by hon. members. In my view it should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for the consideration of the House by way of a point of order.

Indeed, as the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands opined in her opening remarks, at page 8719 of Monday’s Hansard:

—I still think there is a compelling case that the House must act to set limits around omnibus legislation.

Later, at page 8720, she conceded that:

It is clear that the Speaker is not, at present and in absence of rules from the House to limit the length and complexities of omnibus bills, entitled to rule that an omnibus bill is too long, too complex or too broad in scope. 

What she is seeking to do, through a point of order, is try to have the Speaker in fact implement new rules, effectively new Standing Orders. That is, of course, not the proper way of proceeding. Moreover, it is worth noting that over the decades of the prevailing status quo, the House has not availed itself of any opportunities to vary the status quo with regard to the Standing Orders in this matter.

I will not repeat myself from Monday afternoon when I articulated the consistent theme of Bill C-38, as it related to the implementation of this year’s budget, economic action plan 2012. It is a comprehensive suite of measures designed to ensure jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity, a package which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was endorsed by a vote of the House on April 4.

Therefore, in conclusion, Bill C-38 is not only built around a consistent theme, but its construction is not, as noted by your predecessors, for the Chair to veto.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond briefly to my hon. friend the government House leader.

I am aware of the fact that the official opposition has requested time to present its view on this extremely important point of order. I say that not out of any personal hubris but because I think it is a matter that should occupy, and has occupied previous Parliaments, but not in the form in which the House leader misconstrued my argument.

I was not selective in quotes. When I quoted Speaker Lamoureux, it was to point out that what he referred to was the problem of omnibus bills—

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Nice try.

Elizabeth May: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak without the hon. gentleman trying to interrupt me.

What I was speaking to was that if it is a proper omnibus bill, in other words if it has a theme, if it has a single purpose or relevancy, then it is not for the Speaker to intervene. However, it is clear on the precedents I cited, particularly Speaker Fraser’s ruling from 1988 on the free trade agreement, that a bill must first be accepted as a proper omnibus bill. That is the first test. It does not require a rewrite of the standing rules. It is a matter of precedent. If it is not a proper omnibus bill, it violates Standing Order 68(3).

I will not replace my arguments at this time or repeat them. I want to merely distinguish for you, Mr. Speaker, that every thing the government House leader has said misses the entire legal point that I made.

A Speaker will not intervene to change the complexity, length or number of bills within an omnibus bill if it is properly an omnibus bill. This one fails that test. It is not derived from items solely found in the budget. It is not derived solely from anything that can be called one theme. There is no excuse for putting in sections that have to do with changing the oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, altering fish habitat legislation or changing the role of Parks Canada wardens.

The number and scope of the changes that were never mentioned in the budget itself, combined with the number of things that hon. members from Privy Council believe to actually be in the bill, which clearly are not there, suggests the bill, as the French version of the rules says is, incomplète, or the English version, imperfect. It is imperfect in shape and form. It is not a proper omnibus bill.

I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to await arguments from the official opposition. I look forward to what I hope and trust will be an impartial, fair judgment in the interest of protecting Westminster parliamentary democracy and the institution of this Parliament itself.

The post Points of Order – Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Re: ‘Credible’ key in vision for the future (Letters April 18).

I appreciated the support from letter writer Ion Buicliu in reply to Mike Houle’s criticism of my role as MP. Now that Mr. Houle has written once again, I feel it might help him to know how I have indeed been working as a “collaborative parliamentarian.”

My work in Parliament has been noted by many of my colleagues of all parties as I have worked to improve respect and decorum in the House. Working in non-partisan caucuses I have worked (with others) to establish since my election, I am pleased with progress in developing greater understanding across party lines.

On issues from climate change to human smuggling, I have been forging trans-party alliances. Progress is being made on issues from abolishing interprovincial trade barriers for wine sales to protecting species at risk.

This month’s edition of the national Walrus magazine describes me as “the country’s hardest working politician.”

No doubt it is impossible for any MP to please everyone within their ridings, but I think any fair reading of my efforts will yield a more balanced assessment than that rendered by Mr. Houle.

Elizabeth E. May, MP
Saanich-Gulf Islands

View the full original article >>

The post Elizabeth May responds to readers responses appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Tarik Brahmi: We already have submarines that cannot go underwater and now the government wants to purchase planes that do not even fly. Those submarines cost $750 million—they should not be proud of that—plus the billions of dollars needed for repairs. This government—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Tarik Brahmi: How can our soldiers trust the Conservatives when they signed—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. The hon. Associate Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, the best way I can answer whatever that question was is to say that the public and our Canadian Forces can trust our government to do the right thing for them. The no defence party over there would have no appreciation for that whatsoever.

[zgJHdALYjOg]

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that relates to Standing Orders 16 and 18. Standing Order 16(2) states:

When a Member is speaking, no Member shall…interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.

Standing Order 18 states:

No member shall speak disrespectfully…nor use offensive words against…any member thereof.

The House started the 41st Parliament with a real commitment to respectful discourse, but there is no question it has slid badly. There is no one party which is solely responsible. Every party has played its part in making the atmosphere unpleasant and excessively partisan.

However, I must say that I found the treatment of the hon. member for Saint-Jean when he was posing his question today to be despicable. Imagine ourselves as teachers in a schoolyard where one child may not speak as clearly as the others and a bunch of bully boys decide to make fun of that child as he is speaking. We would look on that situation and as teachers, we would say, “Excuse me boys, you don’t speak to so and so that way. Give him a chance”.

I know we are partisan, but do we have to be cruel?

Tarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who spoke. I would just like to say to them that I already know how to read, therefore I am learning to speak. Perhaps in a few years, I will know how to speak. I will be on the other side and I will speak to you.

The post Points of Order – Decorum appeared first on Elizabeth May.