logo
Born in the U.S., Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she would 'die for Canada any day of the week'

Born in the U.S., Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she would 'die for Canada any day of the week'

Yahoo2 days ago

Yahoo News Canada presents 'My Canada," a series spotlighting Canadians — born-and-raised to brand new — sharing their views on the Canadian dream, national identity, and the triumphs and tribulations that come with life inside and outside these borders.
Many may not realize it, but Green Party Leader Elizabeth May isn't Canadian by birth. 'I came to this country as an intentional Canadian,' she says.
A family vacation to Cape Breton compelled May's parents to leave their home in Hartford, Connecticut in the late 1960s. At the time, May and her brother were teenagers. 'My father was British so he never really liked living in the U.S.,' she tells me from Ottawa. 'But my mother was from there so he was kind of stuck when he married her.'
Being on the island inspired the family to make Canada their home. 'My parents decided they didn't want to live in the U.S. anymore,' she says. 'They loved Cape Breton and they loved Canada.'
The young May — an activist even back then — recalls having rose-coloured glasses about what she expected Canada would be like. 'I thought it would be perfect because of Pierre Trudeau not wanting to encourage or support the U.S. in the war with Vietnam,' she says.
Canada wasn't perfect, but it was — and continues to be — quite profoundly, a work in progress. 'I have always loved the Canadian narrative,' May says. 'The U.S. has this notion of a melting pot. Sure they'll put up with immigrants, but they're expected to emerge from that pot homogenized.'
In contrast, May fell in love with the imagery of Canada being a mosaic. 'The country is beautiful in its diversity.'
She believes what is truly embedded in the fabric of our nation — and what sets us apart — is our community spirit. The ever-environmentalist at heart gives the example of the bravery and community spirit during the Fort McMurray wildfires to illustrate her point: 'I like to contrast the difference between Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Fort McMurray fires in 2016.' As the Hurricane Katrina floods approached New Orleans, as much as half the police department took off in their police cars to protect themselves, asserts May. 'In Fort McMurray [Alberta], not a single first responder left to save themselves. They safely evacuated 80,000 people. They didn't leave anyone behind.'
Compare this to the reaction of everyday Canadians during the fires. If a car trying to leave Fort McMurray ran out of gas, residents would jump out of their own cars, push it aside, and say: 'Jump in with us!' May says.
Community spirit is often put to the test in times of crisis, and United States President Donald Trump's ongoing tariff threats have done just that. Since he took office early this year, it has only succeeded in invoking a fervent sense of national pride and patriotism.
'If there's one thing Donald Trump has done for which Canadians may want to thank him, it's for bringing [us] together and to stop beating up on the country.' May thinks it's really good to be aware of how lucky we are. 'Our pride in our country is tempered with not the boasting and bullying bravado you get from the U.S., but about gratitude and renewed sense of care and concern for every other Canadian. We may be under threat and menace from Donald Trump, but we're also pulling together.'
May, who has been the Member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands since 2011 — that's five election wins in a row — says the Canada-U.S. tensions have changed her perspective on her country of birth.
'One of the things it has drawn into sharp focus for us as Canadians is that we've allowed multinational corporations to run our economy for a very long time,' she says. This starts way back when the first industry was based on Canadian trappers and beaver pelts, she says. 'We revolutionized our economy during the Second World War but we have basically allowed ourselves to be an economic colony of the United States. It's not just that we're dependent on them, but we've also allowed them to exploit us.'
It doesn't make sense to anyone in the U.S., and it doesn't make sense to Canadians.
She never would have imagined a U.S. president who decided his first order of business would be to take on Canada.
'It doesn't make sense to anyone in the U.S., and it doesn't make sense to Canadians,' she says. 'But it's a good wake up call. We have to expand our understanding of how many friends we truly have. You can't just pick one.'
But May says she most certainly can 'pick just one' when it comes to love of country — a choice she would make over and over again. '
Being Canadian means everything to me, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else,' May proclaims. 'Our values are deeply connected to Canadians like Tommy Douglas who gave universal healthcare, and what Lester B. Pearson did in making us a country known for peacekeeping. We have an amazing reputation around the world.'
But we have to live up to these values and not just rest on our laurels, she reminds us. 'I would give up my life for this country any day of the week.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

CNN

time22 minutes ago

  • CNN

Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill

President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.

CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS
CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

CLASS ACTION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CANADA ALLEGING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF "EMPLOYER-TYING MEASURES"(1) IMPOSED ON TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKERS, INCLUDING EMPLOYER-SPECIFIC OR "CLOSED" WORK PERMITS

MONTREAL, June 28, 2025 /CNW/ - On September 13, 2024, the Superior Court of Québec authorized the Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers to institute a class action against the Attorney General of Canada. The Association argues that "employer-tying measures"1 imposed on temporary foreign workers2, including employer-specific work permits or "closed" work permits, breach sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Association asks that certain provisions of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations be declared unconstitutional, and that Charter damages (monetary compensation) be paid to all members of the class action. The Attorney General of Canada contests the merits of the class action, which will be determined by a trial to be scheduled at a later time. A person is automatically a member of this class action IF they worked in Canada after April 17, 1982 without having been a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada at the time, AND IF they meet at least one (1) of the following conditions: They were issued a work permit which included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces): They meet this condition if they were hired through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP). They also meet this condition if they were hired through the International Mobility Program (IMP) or another immigration stream or program and their work permit included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer's workplace (or group of workplaces). OR They were authorized to work in Canada without a work permit because they were employed by a foreign entity on a short-term basis, or because they were employed in a personal capacity by an individual who was not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. This category: includes domestic workers, personal assistants or caregivers (nannies or au pair) who entered Canada along with their employers, or to join their employers for a short-term in Canada; includes accredited domestic workers employed in a personal capacity by certain foreign representatives, such as ambassadors, high commissioners, heads of international organizations, special representatives, or individuals occupying similar positions; does not include individuals who were employed by a foreign State or other foreign entity to work at an embassy, a high commission, a consulate, a permanent delegation to a United Nations agency, or a special representative office; does not include individuals employed by the United Nations, its agencies or an international organization of which Canada is a member. Individuals who meet those criteria are automatically included in the class action. They are not required to do anything further to become members of the class action. They will never have to pay legal costs arising from the class action. If a person does not want to be included in the class action, they may opt out of the class action by August 27, 2025 at 4:30 PM at the latest. The means of opting out and the consequences of doing so are explained in the detailed notice to members of the class action: 1 The Attorney General of Canada contests the qualification of the challenged provisions as "employer-tying measures", which comes from the Association's allegations and the authorization judgment. 2 Sometimes referred to as migrant workers. View original content: SOURCE Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP View original content:

Nigel Farage Slammed By Albanian Prime Minister Over 'Bonkers' Prisoner Numbers Claim
Nigel Farage Slammed By Albanian Prime Minister Over 'Bonkers' Prisoner Numbers Claim

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Nigel Farage Slammed By Albanian Prime Minister Over 'Bonkers' Prisoner Numbers Claim

Nigel Farage has been slammed by the prime minister of Albania after he claimed one in 50 prisoners in UK jails come from the country. Edi Rama offered to take every one of them back to the Balkan nation if the Reform UK leader's 'bonkers' claim turned out to be true. And he challenged Farage to visit Albania if he is wrong – and promise to defend the country and its people the next time anyone 'badmouths' them. Rama, who just won a fourth term in office, threw down the gauntlet after Farage criticised Albania on his GB News show. That came after Rama had said Keir Starmer's attempts to deport illegal immigrants to third countries showed the UK was 'in a very dark place' because of Brexit. The Reform boss had said: 'I tell you what, Mr Rama, did you know one in 50 Albanians in Britain are in prison? So show some goodwill and take them all back tomorrow, because this is hypocrisy.' Responding on X, Rama said: 'That 'one in 50 Albanians are in prison' claim? It's not a fact. It's bonkers. A classic from the post-truth Brexit playbook: 'If it sounds scary, it must be true'. 'Guess what? When the numbers are actually run — surprise! — even if we assumed every Albanian currently in prison is guilty (and in fact, many are caught up in an outdated and restrictive visa system), the rate of criminality among Albanians in the UK would be no higher than — and likely lower than — that of the British population itself. 'Now, since we both seem to cherish 'goodwill' and are clearly allergic to 'hypocrisy', here's my offer: Let's both bring our numbers to the table. If your 'one in 50' claim holds water — I will personally commit to taking them all back. That's not a competing headline — it's a public pledge. 'But if your scary stat turns out to be just tabloid fuel, then no apology needed. No drama. Instead, you'll come to Albania — as my guest of honour. You'll get real sun, real hospitality, and even more real facts — about Albania and its fabulous people. 'And all I ask in return is the simplest public pledge from you, made while enjoying our country: next time someone badmouths Albanians, you'll be the first to tell them — in your histrionic way — not to do it again. 'So what do you say? One fact-check for a full deportation — or a full vacation, with some of the warmest people you'll ever meet. Come on, Nigel. If you lose on a fact check, you'll still win a whole nation of friends for life. Looking forward to hearing from you.' Mr.@Nigel_Farage himself has just challenged me on the facts! What an honor — for a 'giant man,' as he described me (meaning, of course, from a 'tiny country') — to earn the attention of Britain's unrivaled virtuoso of headline — Edi Rama (@ediramaal) June 27, 2025 Nigel Farage Heading For Downing Street In Reform UK Surge, Mega-Poll Suggests Voters Urged To Avoid A 'Second Helping Of Farage' Nine Years After Brexit Vote Tax Expert Says Nigel Farage's Latest Policy Would Leave A £34 Billion Black Hole In The Nation's Books

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store