Green Party leader Elizabeth May is facing renewed criticism from pro-Palestine and climate justice advocates after a wide-ranging interview in which she lashed out at the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, defended continued Canadian trade with Israel, and justified her decisive vote in favour of Mark Carney’s Liberal budget by praising his economic credentials.
The comments, delivered during a lengthy appearance on journalist Rachel Gilmore’s Bubble Pop, reveal a growing contradiction at the heart of May’s politics: strong rhetorical condemnation of Israeli war crimes paired with material support for the very economic and political structures that enable them.
Attacking BDS While Israel’s Assault Continues
During the interview, May reiterated her long-standing opposition to the BDS movement, portraying it as “polarizing,” “divisive,” and incompatible with her view of Israel’s right to exist.
While she emphasized that the Greens support targeted sanctions and consumer labelling—particularly against products originating in illegal settlements—she again drew a hard line against full BDS, a Palestinian-led non-violent strategy endorsed by large segments of global civil society.
From a pro-Palestine perspective, this distinction is increasingly seen as hollow.
BDS is not simply an “NGO tactic,” as May framed it, but a coordinated call from Palestinian civil society aimed at dismantling apartheid, ending occupation, and securing equal rights. By rejecting BDS while offering softer alternatives, critics argue May is effectively sidelining Palestinian leadership in favour of a Canadian political comfort zone.
Continued Trade With Israel: Normalization, Not Accountability
Despite acknowledging that Israel’s assault on Gaza constitutes a war crime—and even using the word “genocide”—May stopped well short of calling for a full trade embargo or the suspension of the Canada–Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA).
Instead, she defended continued trade with Israel, provided it excludes settlement goods and weapons.
For many Palestine solidarity activists, this position amounts to normalization.
Trade, they argue, is not neutral. Israeli military power, settlement expansion, and surveillance infrastructure are deeply embedded in the country’s civilian economy. Maintaining “business as usual” trade relations while condemning atrocities allows Canada to appear morally outraged while remaining economically complicit.
Voting for the Budget: A War Vote by Any Other Name
May’s most consequential action was not rhetorical but parliamentary.
She was the only opposition MP to vote in favour of Mark Carney’s budget—delivering the Liberals a confidence vote that kept the government in power.
That budget:
- maintains and expands Canada’s role in weapons manufacturing,
- reinforces NATO-aligned military procurement,
- and signals a shift toward “security-driven” industrial policy.
While May insisted her vote was secured by climate assurances—assurances she later said were betrayed—the political reality remains: her vote enabled a budget that strengthens Canada’s war economy at a moment when arms exports and military integration are under intense scrutiny.
“The Right Prime Minister” — Because Markets Approve
Perhaps most revealing was May’s defense of Carney himself.
Despite accusing him of breaking his word on climate commitments, she repeatedly described Carney as potentially “the right prime minister for now,”
“Carney’s strongest credentials are in banking,” May said.“He can pick up the phone and talk to people who control billions,” May said, defending Carney’s economic credibility despite broken climate commitments.
This praise was narrowly technocratic—but politically significant.
Under Carney’s leadership, the Liberal government has:
- scrapped the consumer carbon tax,
- shifted climate policy toward market-friendly offsets,
- reduced pressure for higher capital gains taxation on wealth,
- and promoted domestic weapons manufacturing as an economic strategy.
Critics argue these choices flow directly from Carney’s worldview: one in which investor confidence, market stability, and geopolitical positioning outweigh climate urgency, redistribution, and human rights.
Calling this “economic competence,” they say, merely masks neoliberal continuity under a new brand.
