Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-26 15:55 [p.6184]

Madam Speaker, I speak to colleagues today from the traditional territory of the W_SÁNEC nation. It is a deep honour to be a member of Parliament for such a place. Hych’ka Siem.

I am going to start with a reflection on the historical nature of this budget and with a thought that comes to us from the late Jane Jacobs, one of the most remarkable thinkers in Canada and a great urban planner. In her last book, Dark Age Ahead, she mentioned that we as a society seem to have collective amnesia.

What I am going to say next will probably result in some heckling. I apologize for that. I mean I apologize for possibly provoking heckling, not for heckling, as I have never heckled.
I do find it important, as we look at this budget, which has, finally, a historic commitment to child care, to look at the last chance we had for child care, the last chance we had to actually live up to our Kyoto targets and the last chance we had to make substantial progress toward reconciliation.

I am speaking of the 2005 achievements that were brought to an end. I am not going to refer to the political parties or the leaders at the time, but I will say that those opportunities were snatched from us by our first-past-the-post electoral system. This is why I say that, and I will just preface this by saying I was not a member of any political party at the time. I was the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada. When I think of November 28, 2005, I could weep. I have wept.

We had a really good plan to reach the Kyoto targets. When I speak of collective amnesia, this include the Liberals, whose plan it was, but who seem to have completely forgotten that this was a historic reality. We had a very detailed budget from Ralph Goodale as finance minister. The minister of environment at the time was Stéphane Dion. It was found that it would have gotten us to within striking distance of 6% below 1990 levels. We now stand, in our last reported emissions, at 21% above 1990 levels.

Ken Dryden was the minister who delivered the child care plan, which was phenomenal. It had something that we do not have now in that it had signed agreements from 10 provinces. It really mattered. Members can ask Martha Friendly. It mattered, and it also had funding.

We also had five major indigenous organizations in this country representing first nations, Métis, Inuit, native women and so on working on a very strong agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, of $5 billion over five years. It was never enough, but it was a good start. These were all brought to an end because of first past the post and because of looking ahead at what would happen if a minority government was supported again.

Earlier in this House there was a bit of a debate between the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Kingston and the Islands about the budget that year. Let us be clear. The budget that year did carry. Paul Martin’s government did not fall on the budget. The budget, as some of us will remember, was brilliantly rewritten by Jack Layton. The budget included close to $5 billion in increased social spending, money for affordable housing and more money to end global poverty. It actually would have put Canada on track to hold to 0.7%, to meet that target known as the Pearson target. As I said, I could weep.

The budget passed, but then the Conservatives under Stephen Harper engineered the fall of the government by putting forth their own non-confidence motion, with the support of the other two parties in this House today, the Bloc and the NDP. It brought down the government because of first past the post. This is because, if an opposition party is looking forward, it really does not want the Liberals to be all that popular, and it would be popular if it were delivering on Kyoto, delivering on Kelowna and delivering on child care.

If it were not for that fateful vote on November 28, 2005, our emissions would now be measured against 1990 levels, not 2005 levels, and we would not be 21% above 1990 levels. We would be below them. Child care would have been a reality for Canadian working mothers and, I should say, parents, as dads take responsibility too, but as we know, it is mostly moms. Child care would have been a reality for the last 15 years, not five years away, as the new Minister of Finance states. I believe she fully intends and is fully committed to delivering on child care, but as a provincial jurisdictional reality, the money will not be enough without the agreements. We have to hope that child care deal gets done, but we would have had it for a very long time.

Here we are with this budget, and what do we like about it? Again, I have to say that if this budget is back to the future, we will never get those years back. It was a political calculation that it was worth defeating Paul Martin’s government to put Stephen Harper in place because everybody, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives, would do better later on.

We will never get those years back, so now where are we?

I am sure that I can speak for the other members of the Green caucus, and we are all very pleased to see the child care funding. We want to see that succeed, and we would love to support that. However, this budget is missing pharmacare. Why are we not moving ahead on pharmacare? The Hoskins report is sitting there gathering dust.

What happened to guaranteed livable income? We heard the Liberal convention and the NDP convention both support having a basic income, and that means a guaranteed livable income. It is not here at all.

What happened to speaking to the opioid crisis that is taking lives across this country? Where is decriminalization? Where are the really significant plans to deal with the opioid crisis? What about those who are really being left behind here. Youth and post-secondary students, and people living with disabilities are being left behind. There is nothing for people who are dealing with low income and renting their places. There is so much missing here.

What of overseas development assistance and that one little promise from 2005? We have not heard anybody in the government talk about 0.7% of GDP to overseas development assistance since. This budget does very little on overseas development assistance, a surprisingly small amount. NGOs and those in the development community have asked for at least put 1% of what industrialized countries are putting into COVID relief to be put into overseas development assistance. This does not come close. It comes to less than half of one per cent, and it is spread over many years. We know the developing world is going to face a food crisis as a result of COVID. There is a need for more help than ever to developing countries, and, yes, there is an increase, but it is not nearly adequate.

There is money for the Canadian water agency, which is terribly important, but years ago, in 1986, when I worked in government, there was the Inland Waters Directorate, which is essentially what the Canada water agency is now being created to replace because it disappeared through cuts through years. It had over 1,250 employees and I think a budget of $16 million, if memory serves. Just a drop in the bucket is going into this new agency. It needs far more than $8.5 million a year for two years. That is just not adequate.

On climate, the budget itself says it will get us to 36% below 2005 levels by 2030. That is debatable. There is a lot of spending in here that is really laudable. I love the green bonds idea. That is great. It is very exciting to see $4.4 billion go into what they are calling “deep home retrofits” to do more with renewable energy, but there is a lot in here that is masquerading under titles like “clean technology”, but it is dirty technology, such as small and medium nuclear reactors. If we are making hydrogen, that is great, but we have to make sure it is 100% from renewable energy, not from fossil fuel sources.

The big elephant in the room is how we can have a budget that claims to do something about the climate crisis, but that keeps the subsidies in place, the billions of dollars a year, to produce more fossil fuels while promoting and building, as a Canadian Crown corporation, a pipeline to deliver a product that does not have a market, is uneconomical and threatens to destroy ecosystems all along the route it is being built.

It has already been halted because just last week they realized they were cutting down trees and endangering the habitat of migratory birds. They were, in fact, destroying the habitat of migratory birds. Our Crown corporation, which is our tax dollars at work, is building a TMX pipeline that should never be built and which is a direct threat to the climate. The Parliamentary Budget Office says that if this project has any more climate limitations imposed upon it, it will lose billions of dollars, and that was before this budget, which does have new climate limitations.

There is much to like in this budget. There is much that one would want to support, but how do we get around knowing that, if we are serious about holding onto a livable world for our kids, we have to reduce greenhouse gases far more rapidly? We have to reduce them more rapidly than even the new announcement of 40% to 45% below 2005 by 2030 the Prime Minister made at President Biden’s climate leaders summit last week. Our fair share is a minimum of 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. This budget, as much as there are good measures in it, and I have mentioned only some of them in relation to climate, there are others that are—

The post Elizabeth May reacts to the 2021 federal budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak virtually today and I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for this opportunity to split the time.

I want to acknowledge that I am on the traditional territory of WSÁNEC Nation, part of the coast Salish nations of the beautiful area of Saanich Gulf Islands. Over time perhaps we could change the name Saanich to WSÁNEC to spell it in SENCOTEN because that is the source of the name Saanich Peninsula where I am honoured to represent the wonderful constituents of this area.

I am taking a different approach to this look at Bill C-14 and I am afraid that I may end up being very boring. That is because we have before us really important legislation. I wish it had been passed long ago when it first came forward because it does provide important supports, as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just said, that we will support from the Green Party: supports for low and middle income Canadians, relief on student debt, more support for virtual care, mental health, substance abuse programs. There is help for businesses in their rent. These are things that we would have liked to have seen pass, but that does not mean that we do not have some significant concerns about the fall economic statement and the upcoming budget.

This is where I am afraid where I am going to perhaps be boring. I would love to give a speech to make the point that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois just made that our recovery needs to be focused on renewable energy, on a green economic recovery and the need to actually hit our Paris commitment to hold to 1.5° which the current government legislation in Bill C-12 does not come close to ensuring that we have anything like accountability.

I want to focus on the question of what is our role as parliamentarians when we look at budgets. What is our role as parliamentarians when we look at the fall economic statement? What is our job? In theory, and as some will know when I start speaking the House of Commons and say what is supposed to be happening in theory, members can be pretty sure it is not what is happing in practice. In theory, parliamentarians are responsible for the public purse. We are responsible as one of our core jobs as members of Parliament, to control the public purse. If we are going to control the public purse, it suggests that we actually know about the measures we are voting for, that we are able to analyze the budget and get enough information to be effective and responsible as parliamentarians.

Speaking in general first and then zooming in on the specifics, in my experience of reading budgets and that goes back to well before I was honoured to be elected in this place in 2011, I used to go to pre-budget lockups. When I was the executive director of Sierra Club of Canada and was one of the founders of something called the Green Budget Coalition and sat down with the Minister of Finance and worked through budgets after the fact. In pre-budget lockups I would usually bring previous years’ budgets with me so that I could quickly reference to see which department is getting more money, which department is getting less money and what does this look like in terms of our accountability and where is the money going?

I have been trying to remember the last time I saw a budget that actually included the numbers. This will strike Canadians as odd. How can we have a fall economic statement or a budget that does not include the numbers? Well there are numbers there, but they tend to unrelated one from the other. In preparing for this speech, I found a column from December 2015 that was written by three friends of mine: Kevin Page, our former parliamentary budget officer; Bob Plamandon, noted Conservative commentator; and former MP and friend, Pat Martin. They penned an article for The Globe and Mail on this very point. Members of Parliament do not have enough information to actually do the job we are supposed to do which is controlling the public purse.

To quote from that article from three colleagues they wrote: “It’s well nigh impossible for mere mortals to follow the money”. It is well nigh impossible. We used to have budgets where we actually add up the various departmental budgets and get to a number which is what the government was going to spend.

The post The budget needs more transparency and more information appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“For the first time, we’re seeing a focus on adaptation to climate change in this year’s budget,” said Elizabeth May. “I’m pleased to see signficant investment in clean tech and climate initiatives, and limited funding for improvements to our east-west electricity grid.

“Taking into account losses to revenue this year due to the free admission to National Parks, Parks Canada is also seeing a significant investment for capital acquisitions, although more money is needed on a budgetary basis for increasing scientific capacity.”

“However, we cannot measure Prime Minister Trudeau against years of inaction under the Harper administration. Rather, the benchmark was set by the progressive conservative agenda of Brian Mulroney. By this measure, commitments to funding toward protection of the Great Lakes Area and Lake Winnipeg are welcome, but still fall far short.”

“As MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, I’m delighted to see $80 million in funding for the the Sidney Centre for Plant Health, a research facility that I fought hard to keep open during budget cuts under the previous administration.”

“Yet this budget misses other low-hanging fruit, like the renewal of the eco-energy retrofit grant, and rebates for electric and hybrid vehicles. These programs would empower Canadians to take individual action in the collective fight against climate change. We’re also seeing little movement on the administration’s plan to ‘phase-out’ fossil fuels, and we will maintain subsidies to the LNG industry through 2024.”

“This budget needed to more aggressively target the elimination of the deficit by implementing simple revenue generating policies, such as a tax on sugary beverages. This tax would also go a long way toward improving the health of the Canadian population, and in particular children.”

The post Budget 2017: Fossil fuel subsidies, stock option loophole continue; climate action inches forward appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It gets worse, because I find nothing in here at all about the overseas development budget, nothing. We know it was cut by over $670 million in the last two years. Is it frozen? Is it going up? Is it going down? Where are we on humanitarian assistance?

Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been at the forefront in the Middle East in terms of humanitarian assistance. Only last year humanitarian assistance increased 62% compared to the year before. Canadians expect us to deliver aid in an accountable way that is effective for people in need, and this is exactly what we are doing.

On top of that, the budget creates the development finance initiative that will help to put more investment money into developing countries helping them to create and sustain economic growth.

The post Elizabeth May: Humanitarian Aid (QP) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Robert Sopuck: Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of the changes we made to the Fisheries Act and to environmental laws.

What we did was eliminate needless duplication. What my hon. friend and members across the way do not appreciate is that project proponents and businesses today build the very best environmental standards into the design of their projects from day one. Environmental processes had little to do with that. Our environment will continue to improve under the new environmental laws that this government has put in. The member can take that to the bank.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As much as I think the world of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, he could not be more wrong about what his administration and his party are doing to environmental laws in this country. It is absolutely abominable to see CEAA destroyed, the Fisheries Act weakened and, by the way, the measures that he has described as being positive are not included in the bill we are discussing today.

John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a great contributor to the debate in the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Certainly, she exemplifies the importance of our government listening.

Mr. Fraser certainly has been involved in that debate and always will be, as long as he has a breath to breathe. He has provided some very good constructive criticism for our government.

I want to give great credit to our Minister of the Environment and our Minister of Finance for the way they have listened. That is why we have such ingenious provisions in the budget. They are provisions that reflect the needs of Canadians, provisions that, for instance, invest $10 million in partnerships with groups across Canada. They are the engines in the protection of habitat. They galvanize volunteers. They understand the on-the-ground needs of the fish and the habitat.

Our government will be standing with those people across Canada as we protect our habitat and produce an environment that is not only as good as but is better than the one we inherited.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to ask the member if he finds it surprising that the government would boast about programs that it has cancelled. The environment section of the budget talks about the very successful home energy retrofit program, which no longer exists. I wonder if the member would agree with me that the budget would be much improved if that program were resurrected.

Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, certainly the budget would be improved and our environment would be much improved if that program still existed.

One of the curious things about that program is that when the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources justified ending that program, they did so by trumpeting its great success and the many jobs it created, so there is no rationale for cancelling that job program.

In fact, it becomes an extremely important program for a city like Toronto. One of the curious things about the city that I live in, because of its particular built form, is that over 60% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from heating and cooling the built environment, so a program like the eco-energy program became a critical part of dealing with climate change and with greenhouse gas emissions in a city like Toronto.

I know my constituents very much regret the decision of the government to cancel that program, not only because of the improvements it brought to their own properties and because of their concern about the environment but also because of the great job potential that the program had.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Do my hon. colleagues here know that the restaurant staff get laid off when we go back to our ridings for Christmas, and are later hired back? They will not be able to find a job. What employer wants to hire someone for two weeks or three weeks, knowing that staff who have been working in the parliamentary dining room for multiple years are expected back to work as soon as we come back?

The system was designed around—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.

We are really running out of time.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, maybe I will have a little surprise for the member here.

I like her question. Maybe she does not know that in the employment insurance rules, they are not allowed to say they work in the parliamentary restaurant. A woman is not allowed to say she is pregnant, because that would damage her chances to get a job. They are not allowed to say they are driving a school bus, because that would stop them from having a job. They have to lie to the employer. That is in the employment insurance rules—and the Conservatives say they are there to protect the employees, the workers?

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We do not have the opportunity to sit on committee, and every time debate is limited, we are precluded from any opportunity to speak to the bills. While it is always antidemocratic for every member in the House, it is particularly egregious in the case of members like me, who never have an opportunity to speak for 10 or 20 minutes on the bills that are debated in this place, because there is almost always time allocation.

I would like to ask the junior minister to please reconsider limiting debate, because it is particularly antidemocratic.

Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, with no disrespect meant to my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, she had 30 seconds or perhaps a minute—I was not timing it—to ask me a substantive question about this, to follow the debate, instead of asking what I hear so often from the NDP, a process question. There are a lot of things in this piece of legislation that could be discussed, a lot of positive things that Canadians are waiting for. They are urgently asking us to get this done. I refer to the funding for Genome Canada. Also, the mandate of the Nature Conservancy of Canada will soon expire, and it is looking for the replenishment that we have set out in the bill to help preserve natural lands all across this country. The Nature Conservancy is hoping we get this done as soon as possible.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I take nothing away from the member for Parkdale—High Park that we do need to have it adequately studied. There are many provisions, particularly relating to crown corporations and government involvement, in there.

My question is provoked by the member saying that this budget is budget implementation bill number one. I would like any information that she may have about what will be in budget implementation bill number two? Is there going to be another one coming?

Cathy McLeod: Mr. Speaker, certainly the tradition of the House has been that there is a budget that is tabled and there is legislation that follows, so I cannot speak to what will be coming.

We do know that in the budget there were a few other measures that the Minister of Finance will perhaps look at moving forward at some other date.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.