2025 Federal Election candidate interviews — Melissa Snazell (Greens)

For the 2025 federal election, we asked each of Canada’s major parties* to connect us to a local candidate to talk about their policies and offer their perspective on issues of relevance to voters in the Fraser Valley’s five ridings between Langley and Hope.

We spoke to Brad Vis (Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford), John Aldag (Liberal, Langley Township—Fraser Heights), Teri Westerby (NDP, Chilliwack—Hope), and Melissa Snazell (Green, Abbotsford—South Langley).

We asked each candidate questions pertaining to their party’s specific policies and approach to voters. Each candidate was also asked: whether Canadians should boycott American products, their response to calls for federal funding to protect Sumas Prairie, how they reconciled their positions on resource development with the desire to respect First Nations’ traditional territory, and why they personally are running for office.

The Fraser Valley has one riding (Abbotsford—South Langley) in which the presence of a strong independent candidate creates a unique voting dynamic. We have invited every candidate from the riding for an interview. Watch for those later this week.

Below, you can watch our interview with Green candidate Teri Westerby—or read the transcript.

You can find our interviews with candidates from the other major parties here:

John Aldag (Liberals) | Brad Vis (Conservatives) | Teri Westerby (NDP)

*In inviting a candidate from the Green Party but not others, we took our lead from the commission overseeing Canada’s federal debates, which defined a major party as one that held at least one seat in Parliament and was running candidates in 90% of ridings. After we had invited candidates, the commission rescinded its debate invitation to the Greens. We decided to proceed with our interview.

Check out our election hubs for more information on the candidates, the parties, and how to cast a ballot on Monday, April 28: Chilliwack & the Eastern Fraser Valley | Abbotsford & Mission | Langley

All interview transcripts have been lightly edited for clarity and concision. If you notice an error, email us.

Melissa Snazell (Green Party of Canada) | Abbotsford—South Langley

FVC: I've asked everybody this, so maybe you can start by telling me why you are running in the election.

Snazell: I'm running because I feel like this country needs some change. We have a lot of crazy going on right now, and I think we need a government that can bring some balance and some sanity back to our policy. And I feel I'm running with the Green Party because I feel like they have that platform, and I'm asking the citizens of Abbotsford—South Langley, to take a chance on me, because I really think in our area, with a lot of agriculture, a lot of natural resources, we need to be managing them correctly.

The relevancy of the Green Party

FVC: The Green Party hasn't won a seat locally before. Why should people, in an election that many people think is very important, cast a vote for for a Green candidate?

Snazell: Yes, that’s been made very clear to me that the Green Party doesn't have a chance and that it's a wasted vote. But I'm here this time saying, please take a look. BC doesn't typically get a chance to stand up for the resources in the country. Most of the voices are back east in the federal election, and I think it's very imperative that we have Green voices in the Parliament, and we have had one or two historically and I think that the valley, we are getting more and more important with our agriculture and our resources [and] that we need to have representation in the Parliament with people who are going to take those into account. We need to prepare for climate change. We need to build our infrastructure with that in mind and making sure we're adapting, and I think that's very important in this area. So I'm asking people to give me a chance.

FVC: Looking back, with Canada's major parties abandoning consumer carbon taxes, and the Conservatives suggesting we should repeal the industrial carbon tax, what can the Green Party point to as evidence that having a green-focused and environment-focused party is better than having those environmentalists participate within other, larger, established parties.

Snazell: If we look at what's happening—everybody is pushing for the pipeline, but in 20 years infrastructure is going to have to change. Our energy systems are going to change, whether we want them to or not, and if we build pipeline infrastructure now, it's going to be obsolete in 20 years.

So we should be putting our R&D money, take the money out of the oil companies, support the workers, re-educate, redistribute into green technology. The Green Party has proposed to build an electrical grid across the country, and we should be getting electrical easy-chargers in small towns and rural neighborhoods. So the Green Party wants to look forward to what's coming, rather than looking back to what we've always done and do more of it because, as we move forward, we're not going to have a choice. We have to adapt to the climate, and we as Canada, should be leaders, global leaders, in making these changes.

Sumas Prairie and the Nooksack River

FVC: You mentioned adapting to a changing climate. What should be done to deal with the threat posed by the Nooksack River to Sumas Prairie?

Snazell: Yeah, I was reading about that yesterday. Actually, we need to protect it. We need to have a cross-border, an international coalition, to discuss it, because the river doesn't know borders and we have to have both sides of the border on the same page, discussing how we take care of it, how we move forward with the infrastructure to make sure we don't have flooding, but at the same time making sure that the fish and the ecology around the river is safe and ready to move forward as well.

FVC: How do you do that if the Americans don't want to change the flow of the river or block the water from coming into Canada?

Snazell: That's a tough one; especially with the way the Americans are right now, it's a daily wonder about what they're going to do. I just I think we have to be diplomatic. I think of all the states, I think Washington is a little more stable right now. And we need to really be diplomatic and talk to them and have our science behind us and they have science and just sort of talk straight-up, like it's not politics, it's real life, and we need to get this done.

FVC: The City of Abbotsford has applied for funding to build new infrastructure to deal with water coming across the border. That would be close to $2 billion worth of work, just to start, including a new pump station, new dikes. There have been some environmentalists who've suggested that we should let Sumas Lake return to Sumas Prairie. What's your perspective on that?

Snazell: My opinion being, we shouldn't have built a town where there was a lake to start with. But that was done. It was done 100 years ago. And what worries me is that prior to the 2021 flood, there were multiple geotechnical reports stating that if we had a 100-year flood, those dikes would not hold, and the province chose not to put money into upgrading and fixing the dikes prior to an event.

So we had the event, the dikes didn't hold, and then we put way more money into repairing the dikes and funding the houses and the farms and everybody that was damaged by it. So at this point, I think we need to start focusing on—when we have these reports, we need to act on them, and we need to put the money in now. And it's a lot of money, and it sounds crazy, because it's not a tomorrow; it's not going to happen tomorrow, is what I think people feel. So it's a lot of money to put into something that might happen. But thing is, it is going to happen, and so we need to be prepared.

Economic development and reconciliation

FVC: The other major parties have suggested the need to speed up resource projects and resource development in Canada. The Green Party has generally been opposed to development of new resource projects that would increase climate change emissions. At the same time, the other parties are being asked how [resource development promises] would mesh with commitments to First Nations to respect their opinions on what's being done on their traditional territories. But the opposite is true too. There are First Nations who are supportive of LNG projects in their areas. How do you feel about finding a balance, and would you support an LNG project that increases greenhouse gas emissions if First Nations supports it or promotes it on their territory?

Snazell: That's a tough call, and I do feel like in those cases, I would want to see where the money is, and if there are pockets being greased, if there are people being incentivized to encourage these projects. I believe the Green Party just can't support furthering these projects. We do have a belief of sharing the table with the Indigenous and making sure it's a collaborative exercise. I feel that should go both ways so—my stand with Indigenous relations is, as a government, we shouldn't be making Indigenous policy. We should be collaborating with the Indigenous nations so on a project like that, I would like to ask to come to the table and discuss with them how we could work it otherwise: What other options we could come up with that we don't need to put investment into that kind of infrastructure,

FVC: Because there are Indigenous and First Nations Economic Development projects in various places, and just like any other community, there are different perspectives on what should be built where, within communities and between communities. And one thing I try and think about is where the priority lies—if a First Nation says we would like to build this project here, and an environmentalist says, actually, we don't want that there, how that is balanced. And I guess you're saying you try to give them a second option?

Snazell: Yeah, I would want to know why are they encouraging that project? Why do they feel that that project would be beneficial to their territory, knowing that it's a somewhat destructive process, and then to say, how can you get those benefits that you're looking for without building that kind of infrastructure?

Should Canadians boycott American products

FVC: Moving on. I've asked all the other candidates this because of the weird time we're in. Do you think, given where we are with American relations, with the the United States, and what both people and governments can do to play their role or play our role, do you think Canadians should boycott American products?

Snazell: I do. And I feel for the American people. But what where I come from with this is that we need the American people to stand up for their democracy, and I feel like their economy is kind of the only thing that really gets their attention. So if their economy starts to falter, then maybe a few more people will look up. Because it's kind of been concerning me a little bit that there aren't more voices concerned about what's happening down there, and more more big, loud voices [not] saying this isn't okay. So I feel that if Canada boycotting their products might stimulate some of that, then I'm all for it.

Better fire breaks

FVC: I was looking at your party's plan, which, to its credit seems to have more explanations on your website than other ones, but that also gives me more room for questions. So I'm wondering: the plan says your party would reduce wildfire risk through better forest management, but also through building better fire breaks. Can you enlighten me on what that means?

Snazell: The overall plan—I had a geography class where we went through this this semester, and I don't know exactly what they mean by fire breaks, but the key is to make sure when we're building houses, when we're building communities, to make sure there's a buffer between the burnable, the ignitable products and the housing structures.

So if you have shrubs and trees right up next to your house, if there's trees that hang over, stuff like that really lowers your fire stability of the house. So it's really an effort to make sure that our communities are protected with a buffer zone so the fires can't jump, they can't come in and to make sure the ground cover is cleared out so there's not a lot of extra flammable timber around.

So it's as much about making sure our communities are safer from the fire because we know—I saw a news article actually last year with the Kelowna fires, there was a professor at the UBC campus that said every summer she takes her important documents to the university campus—even her personal documents, just in case her house burns down. So I feel like if people are preparing in that way, we really need to take a look at—especially when we're building new housing projects.

Housing

FVC: The website talks about the Green Party's housing plan and plan to build more houses, and a lot of it focuses on building more public housing. Most housing built in Canada is built by the private sector, and Canada needs, most people agree, a lot more housing for its growing population to just catch up to the fact that prices have increased so much.

One thing, I noted on the site is it says the Green Party would stop corporations from buying up single-family homes. And it somewhat makes sense, but at the same time, a lot of the housing projects that take place in the Fraser Valley—the townhome projects and department projects—come after companies have bought multiple single-family homes, consolidated a larger lot and then built a project on that lot. So would stopping incorporations from buying up single-family homes, not potentially really stall the building of townhomes and apartments that are the only units that lots of people can afford to buy right now?

Snazell: I don't think that's quite the point. The point is there's corporations that buy up single-family homes and and rent them out as single-family homes. If they're buying them to produce high-density housing, affordable, high-density housing preferably, that's not what that discussion is about. There's corporations that just gather properties and then rent them out at astronomical rents.

So it's to stop that sector from being able to make money, and a lot of the landlords aren't taking care of the properties. The tenants aren't having the services they need, and they're afraid to complain because either they kicked out or the rent gets increased. So they’re just happy to have a place that they can afford at that time, and they don't want to rock the boat. If they're being bought to build like I say high density, that's a different story,

FVC: I respect the fact that you didn't write this plan yourself, but how would you distinguish between the two? Because sometimes you have the houses being bought, rented out for prolonged periods by a corporation, but eventually with the long-term goal of redeveloping that property. How do you actually distinguish between one and the other?

Snazell: I think we can have policy, and if a corporation is buying a property, it's different than when an individual is buying a property. So we can put barriers in place that say, if you're a construction or developer buying this property, there's already different permits and things you need for trees and waterways and that kind of thing. So we add a permit, add a policy saying, if you're buying this property, either you need to redevelop it within a period of time—you redevelop you don't buy it. Like you have to have this plan, and it has to be put in place, otherwise the property gets sold back.

Fisheries

FVC: One of the largest roles the federal government plays in the Fraser Valley is its management of fisheries and its jurisdiction over federal fisheries. Does the Green Party have a plan beyond reducing or limiting or restricting fish farms offshore? Do you have any plan to change how fisheries are managed in the Fraser Valley?

Snazell: I think not so much interfering with the fisheries themselves, but making sure—again with the diking system, our dikes are old, and they're built and constructed in a way that fish can't easily get in and out and through them between various waterways.

There are some projects happening, some collaborations. There's a salmon restoration project that works with some of the Indigenous where they're actually reconstructing the dikes. So they have better flow through, so during spawning season, the salmon can come and go as they need to. And with the salmon, the other thing is the water temperature.

And with our rising air temperature every year, the water temperature is getting a little bit higher, and we need to stop the—I sound like a broken record—but with the climate changing, we we need to make sure the salmon have the water temperature. There's a waterway up, I think, near Terrace. There's a lake that's a spawning area for salmon, and it has two tributaries coming into it. The salmon used to spawn on one, but the temperature came up so high that they switched over to the other one, which was glacier-fed, because it had the correct temperature. And now there's a mine about to be built on that waterway. So I think we need to look at what we're doing and make sure that we're not making life harder for the salmon or any of the other—our livelihoods and our food sources. It's one thing to sort of care about the animals, but salmon—if we lose our grocery stores—salmon are a food source for us.

The carbon tax and public opinion

FVC: I’ll finish by going back to the carbon tax. We’ve seen the Liberals and the Conservatives both decide—largely, it seems, because of public sentiment—to back away from the carbon tax, and that was a key part of the way that the federal government hoped to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions. What needs to be done, not necessarily on the policy side, but what needs to be done to convince Canadians … that more needs to be done to reduce emissions? What needs to be done to turn the tide of that public sentiment back to maybe where we were 10 years ago?

Snazell: That's my message this election. I'm really trying to get people to look at the changes that are happening. Like a lot of people, will say, ‘Well, the climate's always changed, It's just natural thing.’ Whether you believe the climate change is human caused or not, if you look around at our summers, the forests are burning, we have the flooding, we have hurricanes, earthquakes, like the world is changing, and we need people to understand that.

My fear is that it's going to take a massive event that will be loss of life, that will be loss of livelihood, before people really understand that this is a situation that we need to focus on. I'm not sure. I'm still working on how to talk to people in a way that they understand.

I have friends that I have this conversation with because I lived up in the Interior for a number of years, and it's I'm not sure how to convince people, but I'm starting by getting my message out there and just getting out in front of as many people as I can, and talking about it and just saying, ‘Look around, look it up, check out the Green Party's options.’ As long as people are looking and educating themselves and open-minded about it, that's all I can ask for.

The interview concluded.

You can find our interviews with Fraser Valley candidates from other major parties here:

John Aldag (Liberals) | Brad Vis (Conservatives) | Teri Westerby (NDP)