Elizabeth May

[Pharmacare Act, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the debate right now is on time allocation on Bill C-64, and I would put it to the Minister of Health that I would love for us to be having a debate on an actual proposal for pharmacare.

It has been since June 2019 that the former Ontario health minister, Dr. Eric Hoskins, gave the government and this country clear direction that we need a national pharmacare program. We are the only country in the world with a national health care program that does not automatically include the provision of needed prescription drugs. We know from the Hoskins report that, properly implemented, a full national pharmacare program will save this country $5 billion a year at least.

However, the bill is picking out only two things, which is what is so strange about this bill and why I object to the debate being closed before we can actually discuss it. Why are we only talking about reproductive health care and diabetes medication? What that may end up doing is giving those opposed to pharmacare evidence that it costs more than it is worth, when we need to prove to everyone concerned that national pharmacare will save our health care system money and ensure Canadians get the health care they need.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are looking to see climate action and, particularly, transit plans across Canada.

They note that the federally supported 10-year transit plan will end in 2027 and that we still lack an effective public transit plan that serves Canadians, particularly in rural and more remote areas, such as Vancouver Island. The petitioners are asking for a permanent federal funding mechanism for public transit to go beyond the 10-year plan and for all orders of government to work together to ensure predictable, long-term and low-carbon transit.

They hope accountability measures will be in place to ensure governments work together to deliver public transit for Canadians.

[Climate Change, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, and contrary to what the Minister of Environment just said, Canada is not on track to meet our target for 2030, which is expressed to the United Nations as 40% to 45% below 2005 levels, only conveniently forgetting the range into 45%.

On top of that, we are still spending more money to support fossil fuels than to decarbonize: $34 billion on Trans Mountain; another $5.7 billion on fraud, carbon capture and storage; and under-spending when the government promised it was going to spend money on climate. We are at least $14 billion behind that promise.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and I have never compared notes, but we went to the same law school. I am drawing on my experience as a proud graduate of the Dalhousie University school of law to say that the current government has completely bungled impact assessment and has bungled repairing the impact assessment law. He referenced it in his speech. Therefore, I want to put to him that we had extremely effective federal environmental assessment laws, starting in 1975, concretized in 1993 in a statute brought in by Brian Mulroney, and they were destroyed by Stephen Harper in the spring of 2012 in a budget implementation act.

The current Liberal government promised to repair the law to what it was before 2012, and instead, it continued with Harper's approach, which is why the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The designated project list approach was far too discretionary and untethered from the federal jurisdictional, clear guidance that existed under Mulroney.

I would ask my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants if he could exert his influence over the people who were not trained at law school, such as the Minister of the Environment, to fix the Impact Assessment Act, but not through this quick, dirty and flawed approach in the ways and means bill.

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, even for the Liberals, this is really something. It is a hat trick: three times, three different platform promises broken in one omnibus budget bill. First up, they broke the commitment to have UNDRIP honoured and consult with indigenous people. Second, they used their omnibus budget bill to change environmental legislation. Third, once again, they failed to fix the Environmental Assessment Act.

Let us make it simple: Environmental assessment under Mulroney's law worked. Harper repealed it. It still does not work. This draft, in this ways and means bill, will go down to defeat at the Supreme Court once again.

Fix it, once and for all, and use the environmental expert panel to guide the government's actions.

[Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 2nd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are debating Bill C-49 on offshore wind, but for my hon. friend for Tobique—Mactaquac, I am surprised to see a Conservative MP wanting to go to bat for SNC-Lavalin getting more work with its shady practices.

SNC-Lavalin bought Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for the bargain basement price of $15 million back in, I think, 2013. It is behind Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, and if there ever is a small modular reactor built in the member's home province, it will be built by that same corporation and not Moltex, which has never built a reactor and does not plan doing one. It will leave it to its partner, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to keep track.

On the question of privilege, I was very distressed by the additional information provided by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am sure all of us in this place know how critically important it is that we have no question in our minds as to the accuracy of Hansard.

I want to stop for a moment to thank the various staff members who make it possible to have verbatim transcripts of everything we say in this place and who give us a chance, if we absolutely have been misunderstood, to correct the record between the blues, which is, for those who might be watching on CPAC, the unofficial transcript, and the publishing of Hansard. It is critical that there never be any question as to the accuracy of Hansard in recording our remarks in this place.

The hon. member for Lethbridge, who happens to be a friend of mine, which is neither here nor there, said there could be no other explanation for the changes between what she said she said, and I accept her word on that, and what appears in Hansard. I always leave open the possibility for an innocent explanation of somebody making an error, but I do not think we can leave this matter where any assumptions are being made about what happened.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this thoroughly to ensure that none of us can have any doubts in our minds that Hansard is an accurate reflection of what members have said and that there is no possibility of any interference, from any quarter, in the words spoken and the printed Hansard, that they are one hundred per cent in alignment with the truth.

[The Budget, April 30th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. friend from Vaughan—Woodbridge, this is very disturbing from a member in this place who has participated more than anyone else in terms of understanding the Kinder Morgan pipeline, being an intervenor in the NEB process, having read all the material put forward by that particular private sector promoter, and knowing full well that the pipeline is not complete. It does not have permissions from the regulator, will not have a leak detection system in place for a full year and has several kilometres yet to be built. However, we have members in this place, the budget itself and the finance minister herself proclaiming that the pipeline is finished, that it is good news, and a further fanciful offering that we will get more money per barrel once the diluted bitumen is offloaded in Aframax tankers.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge if he would be prepared to press the government to provide to each member of Parliament a cost-benefit analysis, which I do not believe was ever presented, for buying the TMX pipeline.

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it was a remarkable question period. I am sure I can speak for many of us with respect to your effort to maintain decorum under difficult circumstances.

What I want to speak to, with all due respect, is misidentifying members of Parliament who sit here as members of the Green Party as independents. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, that in future perhaps your office could reflect on our role and consider that the practice of accepting a list of speakers from the party whips on the opposition benches is not a rule or regulation of the House, but a common habit and practice. The rule is that only you can recognize who speaks in this place and only you can decide who catches your eye.

I would commend to you, Mr. Speaker, if you are willing to look at it, the practice of the Palace of Westminster in looking at written requests from members of the place that the Speaker decides the day before so that there is order in the House and it is no longer controlled by party whips who have an agenda other than decorum.

[The Budget, April 29th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, does my hon. colleague agree with the government spending $34 billion to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the private sector had decided was not profitable and something it was not going to pursue? Every billion is 1,000 million, so it was $34,000 million.

Would the hon. member like to comment on that waste of public funds?