SoVote

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/22 10:28:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to sincerely thank all my colleagues for giving me your consent. I also thank them for their support; we are all united at this time. I want to warmly thank my colleague, the member for Toronto Centre and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth. I would also like to thank my dear colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who is an engineer. Her message touched me. Finally, I thank my colleagues, the member for Shefford and the member for Winnipeg Centre. All of us here, as women in this place, do work in an environment that is traditionally male dominated. All of our society is dominated by the notion of patriarchy. Men are usually in charge. On this day of remembrance, it is especially difficult to think about the events of December 6, 1989, a day I remember as though it were yesterday. For all of us women who were alive, conscious and politically aware, there was the deliberate killing of 16 women who were so young. Their only crime was being in a classroom to study to become an engineer. Their only crime was to be a woman. Margaret Atwood said that men are afraid that women will laugh at them, and women are afraid that men will kill them. We are in a time, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, where violence against women is on the rise. Women who are intimate partners are at risk. There is no question that the words of the member for Winnipeg Centre should ring out clearly across Canada that women are particularly at risk when they have two crimes: They are women, and they are indigenous. The recent charges brought against a serial killer in Winnipeg for those deaths must again wake us up to misogyny, racism and the crimes of a toxic culture in which patriarchy is the accepted default position. We have to ask ourselves what more we can do. There is no question that every member of every party in this place is saying it is time that we must end violence against women. Here we are 33 years on, and violence against women continues. What we can say is that we need our allies. On this day, when so many women turn to each other in sisterhood and solidarity, we embrace especially our male colleagues. They are the men who will stand and say that they are a feminist, the men who will stand up and say that patriarchy belongs in the dark ages of history. We must speak out against femicide. We must stand with those women still in Afghanistan and help them to survive. We must stand with all indigenous women and girls across this country, and stand with the families of those who still do not know where their fallen mommies, aunties, sisters and daughters are. We must say that it is time to end violence, violence against women, violence against each other and the violence we carry in our hearts. The killing of the 16 women on December 6, 1989, must never be forgotten. It is of them we think of this day. We also say we know that ending violence is a job for us all. It does not just fall on women, and it does not just fall on governments. It requires that all of us, heart to heart and neighbour to neighbour, pay attention and protect anyone we see as vulnerable. We must step up in the moment when we hear hatred spoken, because words of hate can turn into acts of hate. We must, especially in this place, because we are here and we know each other, try harder to take the violence out of our language and to take polarization out of our politics. Then we can say to Canadians that we are a country that takes care of each other, we love each other and, in memory of the16 women who were killed on this day 33 years ago, we banish hate from our hearts.

678 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 142 - Dec/6/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/22 10:42:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present this petition. From its very inception, Canada's electoral system has always been a first-past-the-post system. The petitioners point out that this first past the post system leads to distortions. The popular vote is not represented. In these seats in the chamber, we are not here in the proportions for which Canadians have voted. The petitioners call on the government to move toward a system of proportional representation, as recommended by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform in 2016, to bring credible representation to Canadians.

99 words

Context: House Hansard - 142 - Dec/6/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/22 10:54:19 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, it will not surprise anyone here to know that I cannot support a motion to have time allocation even on a bill on which I plan to vote yes. We are far too often, almost 100% of the time, falling into the practice of time allocating bills. The New Democrats and the Liberals decried it, just as much as much as I did, when it was happening to us under the previous Harper government. Now that it is happening to people we are prepared to support in general on bills sometimes, we somehow think it does not matter to have full debate in this place. Could we please revisit the traditions of this place to ensure time is not used in debate by members who read a speech aloud? If we were not reading speeches, we would have far fewer speakers. Returning to our rules in all things will help the House work better and help House leaders organize the work. I sympathize with the reasons, but we now seem to use time allocation every time. Two wrongs do not make a right.

185 words

Context: House Hansard - 142 - Dec/6/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/6/22 3:21:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has any comment on this as we debate Bill C-32. I understand his point that other members have spoken. It was almost getting to be like The Twelve Days of Christmas with how many members have spoken. I expected it to move into music. I ended up being the one Green who spoke. There are other thoughts and comments that we would like to make, but we do not want to prolong debate unnecessarily. The fundamental point is that we have rules and procedures in this place. We have time allocated for debate. If that is truncated on a routine basis continually, what does that mean for the future of this place as a place that is the heart of democracy, where debate takes place and where we do not truncate and bring down the bâillon every time?

155 words