Leah Gazan
Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most disappointing years of my nearly seven years in Parliament, watching the Carney government bulldoze constitutional rights and human rights. The final blow came this week when the Liberals tabled new water legislation after years of failing to end long-term boil advisories.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals tabled water legislation that would fail to recognize clean drinking water as a human right. Today I stood with Grassy Narrows First Nation, where children continue to suffer mercury poisoning caused by decades of government and corporate neglect. This is a national disgrace.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table e‑petition 7402 in response to Manitobans who are calling for a public health emergency in light of the preventable passing of too many community members in the recent weeks due to toxic drug supply.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister tabled Bill C‑37 yesterday, yet its definition of “First Nation lands” is limited to reserve lands under section 91(24) of the BNA Act. While the bill repeatedly references UNDRIP's application, it appears restricted to reserves.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to table e‑petition 7135, which calls on the government to modernize the disability tax credit by revising its eligibility criteria and administrative interpretation to recognize the fluctuating episodic nature of disabilities such as multiple sclerosis and to align the DTC with the disability definition use…”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise today to table a petition to put in place a horse export ban. The citizens in my riding are calling on the residents of Canada to call on the government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture , to ban the live export of horses for slaughter by amending the health of animals regul…”
The complete record
Every one of 252 lines we hold for Leah Gazan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals tabled water legislation that would fail to recognize clean drinking water as a human right. Today I stood with Grassy Narrows First Nation, where children continue to suffer mercury poisoning caused by decades of government and corporate neglect. This is a national disgrace. When challenged to deliver justice, the Prime Minister 's response to a woman living with mercury poisoning was, “I can outlast her.” Will the Prime Minister apologize, clean up the mercury and guarantee clean water for all?”
“It is a community built on care and solidarity, where we understand the importance of always placing community at the centre. I will rest, restore my spirit and return in the fall ready to keep fighting for a better future for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most disappointing years of my nearly seven years in Parliament, watching the Carney government bulldoze constitutional rights and human rights. The final blow came this week when the Liberals tabled new water legislation after years of failing to end long-term boil advisories. This bill does not recognize safe, clean water as a human right for first nations. Worse, it limits protections to reserve boundaries while ignoring aboriginal title and the reality that pollution from resource extraction flows beyond reserve lines, contaminating the waters our nations depend on. As the session ends, I will return home to Winnipeg Centre, which I have lovingly nicknamed “the centre of the universe”.”
“Mr. Speaker, lastly, I would like to table a petition from the residents of Canada that calls on the government to issue a directive under section 19 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and order the CNSC to revoke the license of the NSDF at Chalk River.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise today to table a petition to put in place a horse export ban. The citizens in my riding are calling on the residents of Canada to call on the government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture , to ban the live export of horses for slaughter by amending the health of animals regulations to prohibit this practice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to table e‑petition 7135, which calls on the government to modernize the disability tax credit by revising its eligibility criteria and administrative interpretation to recognize the fluctuating episodic nature of disabilities such as multiple sclerosis and to align the DTC with the disability definition used by the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Disability Benefit Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table e‑petition 7402 in response to Manitobans who are calling for a public health emergency in light of the preventable passing of too many community members in the recent weeks due to toxic drug supply. They are calling on the government to increase funding to substance use and addiction programs, the community action fund and the harm reduction fund and to expand current projects, ensuring reliable year-over-year supports. They also want to see the creation of an interjurisdictional secretariat on harm reduction to eliminate barriers between governments and expedite the creation of sustainability for frontline services.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister tabled Bill C‑37 yesterday, yet its definition of “First Nation lands” is limited to reserve lands under section 91(24) of the BNA Act. While the bill repeatedly references UNDRIP's application, it appears restricted to reserves. Indigenous peoples have rights that extend beyond reserve boundaries into their traditional territories. Can the minister confirm that UNDRIP, including article 25, applies throughout indigenous peoples' traditional territories and not just on reserve, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the Liberals fast-tracked Bill C-5 , gutting environmental protections and indigenous rights, but now with Bill S-2 , which would eliminate sexism and racism from the Indian Act, they suddenly hide behind the need to consult. First Nations everywhere have told the government that there is no need to consult on ending sexism and racism, so will the minister end the spin cycle, stop the excuses and pass Bill S-2 before the summer adjournment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI. In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—”
“Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls. I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs. In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.”
“They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes. I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people. We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—”
“One of the critical problems that women's organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI , is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women's organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so. How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment?”
“Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence. The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late. Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative?”
“Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country.”
“Meanwhile, this year's child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada. (1610) It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women's organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country.”
“This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada. We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality.”
“Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety. In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals' failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations. This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks.”
“As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate. It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people.”
“moved: Motion Nos. 1 to 3 Motion No. 1 That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18. Motion No. 2 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 3 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87. She said: I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16 , as this is a very far-reaching bill. My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women's legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal concluded that Canada's ongoing policies amount to genocide, pointing specifically to the government's seized value of indigenous lands, territories and resources. The tribunal noted that part of the issue is related to the failure of the government to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. Will the government begin to uphold its constitutional obligations and uphold section 35(3) rights? Will it take this finding very seriously and respect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, or is it going to continue building a pipeline to the court?”
“Mr. Speaker, Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, recently suggested that the Constitution be amended because she finds section 35 rights problematic for her pipeline dream. What is more troublesome, though, is that the Liberal Prime Minister has remained silent. However, that is not surprising, considering Amnesty International has confirmed that he has backslid on indigenous rights. Indigenous peoples want to know, does the Prime Minister agree with Premier Smith, or will he take the honourable stand and condemn this dangerous proposition?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie 's decision to leave the Liberal caucus was a principled response to the Liberal government's failure to protect us from catastrophic climate change. We see wildfire seasons, floods and whole towns and communities burning to the ground while people wait for another summer when they are going to be choking on toxic smoke. Will the government reverse its backsliding on environmental protections or will it continue to sit by and watch the world burn to the ground?”
“The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate people, but we know, with recidivism rates, that people in prison come back into communities not rehabilitated but more likely to offend. It is not surprising that more than 80% of former inmates actually return to prison. I would like to thank Senator Pate and advocates for carceral reform across the country, and I want to honour the memory of the late Tona Mills, a survivor of more than 10 years in solitary confinement, for whom the bill is named. May she rest in peace. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)”
“Bill S-205. First reading moved for leave to introduce Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce Bill S-205, an act to amend the Corrections and Correctional Release Act, also known as Tona's law. The purpose of Tona's law is to ensure oversight of and remedies and alternatives to isolation in federal prisons, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, which is something that has been called out in international law as a form of torture, in fact. It is something that is still practised in federal prisons today and is something that we know causes irreversible harm to people.”
“I hope the government will come to its senses, if it wants any credibility with workers and unions across the country, and support Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question. [ English ] It is true that women have some of the worst-paid work and are some of the most exploited workers in this country. It is often a gendered issue. Look at Air Canada flight attendants. That was the most recent disgusting example of the government abusing section 107, impacting a career in which jobs are held primarily by women and gender-diverse people. They also have no child care plan in place. It is another gendered issue where the government refuses to put a work strategy in place to make sure early childhood educators have livable wages and benefits. Liberals still expect us to have bake sales to earn enough money. It is such a bro club with the Liberal government right now. It is a huge issue.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear that the Conservatives are no friends of workers either, but I have to agree with my colleague. Our current Prime Minister seems to have a worse track record than Prime Minister Harper, if members can believe it, in the government's use of section 107, which brings up the reason that unions from across the country, including the CLC, which represents three million workers, are asking to repeal it. Who knows how many more times the Liberal government is going to force people back to work, including unpaid work, and side with the billionaire class and its corporate buddies?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. It took twelve hours for the last strikebreaking tactic to be used by the Liberal government to force mostly women back to unpaid work. The current government has a poor track record on workers' rights, including the only 30‑day time period for labour to respond to other attempts of the Liberal government to crush down the rights of workers. It is a shameful question, and it just demonstrates how the Liberal government continues to turn its back on workers.”
“If the Liberal government decides to stand by its friends, the billionaire class and big multinational corporations, and vote down this bill, New Democrats are ready to stand by working communities, union leaders and human rights advocates to remind the government that it can never take away workers' power to strike.”
“As was recently put so well by our dynamic New Democratic Party leader, Avi Lewis, “The greatest gift we can pass on from one generation to the next is a union card”. (1755) We are giving the Liberals a chance to do what is right, to respect the charter and stop attacks on workers. However, if they refuse, we know workers will not back down against the attacks on their rights. We can just ask the Air Canada flight attendants. During the Winnipeg strike of 1919, nobody waited around for friends of big business in the government to give workers permission to walk off the job.”
“We should be supporting union drives among service workers, gig workers and unpaid care workers, affirming their right to strike should they be offered an unfair deal. It was so inspiring to the NDP to see the beginnings of this movement as Uber drivers in Victoria won a historic victory last month by ratifying a union contract with improved pay, health and safety measures. Given its track record, I ask myself whether the Liberal government sees this victory as just another problem to be solved by draconian back-to-work legislation. For our part, the New Democrats are clear. We offer our warmest congratulations to these drivers and support the struggles for unionization among all similarly exploited, unrepresented workers.”
“That assumption, based on the Liberals' poor record, was just as real as those of the anti-worker Conservative premiers whom the Liberal Prime Minister has grown so close to. When Danielle Smith violated the charter and shut down the legal strike of Alberta teachers, and when Doug Ford violated the charter and tried to shut down the legal strike of Ontario education staff, what did the Liberal government say? There were crickets. That is because it is on the same page as these right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers. At a time of rising inequality, inequity and economic vulnerability, we should be encouraging the extension and empowerment of unions and workers' institutions across Canada, not cutting them down.”
“It is proof of the senselessness of section 107 that flight attendants bravely refused the Liberal minister 's ridiculous back-to-work order and continued to fight for a fair deal, receiving a groundswell of support from over 80% of people across Canada. Section 107, we know, hurts workers everywhere. We know this from the example that breaking strikes hurts workers everywhere. Each time the Liberals invoke section 107, it tells CEOs across Canada that they can disrespect their workers' rights because the government will come to rescue them when their bad-faith bargaining results in a strike. When former Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau was asked why he had no plan in place for customers in the event of a strike, he told the whole world he did not prepare because he did not have to. He knew the government would use section 107.”
“However, when flight attendants exercised their legal right to strike, what did the Liberal Minister of Jobs and Families do? The minister shut them down using section 107 in less than 12 hours. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberal minister this: Was 12 hours enough time to consider the devastating consequences of forcing unpaid work onto so many workers, mostly women and gender-diverse folks, just to please the Air Canada CEO, the former one who had to resign? Was 12 hours enough time to decide in favour of threatening draconian fines on all those who dared to insist that they be paid for their work?”
“That was the same Canadian Union of Postal Workers whose right to strike the Liberal government violated using section 107 in 2024. It is not surprising that the Liberals forget such important lessons when they have so routinely neglected the rights of women workers. We know that their failure to invest in a workforce strategy for child care workers, for example, is threatening women's participation in the workforce. It is also plain that their application of section 107 has had deeply disturbing gendered impacts. Let us remember the most recent example, when CUPE flight attendants at Air Canada went on strike against unpaid labour. In a sector made up of mostly women and gender-diverse folks, it is simply sexist for Air Canada to assume unpaid work could continue to fly.”
“We know that throughout Canadian history, and throughout the world's history, workers exercising their right to strike have been absolutely critical for advancing human rights and economic empowerment. In fact, in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, we had the Winnipeg General Strike, which was a legendary moment in our local history. Over 30,000 workers walked off their jobs in protest of exploitation and unfair wages, forcing governments to recognize their rights and helping unite workers' struggles across Canada. This legacy has lived on through the far-reaching social progress achieved by the labour movement. (1750) Maternity leave was ensured in no small part by the 42-day strike in 1981 by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, helping set the standard for maternity leave across Canada.”
“But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that.” The issue goes beyond Canadian law. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under international law. Workers fighting section 107 in Canada are on the front lines of a global workers' movement. I commend them and say, “Good on you.” I wonder whether the Liberals care, since they are so routinely turning their backs on international law, whether it is a violation of indigenous rights through Bill C-5 , migrants' rights in Bill C-12 or the right to peaceful assembly in Bill C-9 . New Democrats know where we stand. It is with international law and with workers.”
“One of the biggest outcomes of solidarity is that workers understand their rights. Let us talk about workers' rights. In 2015, in its decision on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution as an “indispensable” part of collective bargaining rights. It is no wonder the Liberals have continued issuing their back-to-work orders in backrooms with CEOs rather than out in the open and on record. They are afraid to leave evidence of their unconstitutional behaviour. Even Stephen Harper's anti-worker Conservative labour minister said, regarding the use of section 107 to end strikes, “If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible...then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago.”
“Speaking on repealing section 107, she said, “No government should ever be able to strip workers of their right to free and fair collective bargaining. Canada’s unions will fight alongside the NDP to get this bill passed...and ensure that Canada’s labour laws protect workers, not undermine them”. Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “It's hard to calculate the damage that's already been done by this Liberal government repeatedly stepping in to take away the only leverage workers have at the bargaining table. It's bad for workers' livelihoods, and it's bad for the constitutional rights of all Canadians. Section 107 has got to go”. The CLC, CUPE, CUPW, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, PSAC, the ILWU and more are all standing in solidarity behind this bill to uphold the right to strike. This is the rule of law.”
“moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-247. Second reading She said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing on behalf of the NDP our deepest gratitude to all the workers, unions and labour leaders who have voiced their support for this bill to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold the right to strike. In just two years, the Liberals have used section 107 eight times, each time violating the Constitution and disrespecting the rights of millions of workers on whose backs our country runs. Members do not need to take it from me. We can ask the representatives of workers themselves. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, leads over three million workers across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know why grocery prices are so high. It is because there are a couple of grocery chains, including the ones owned by Galen Weston, that are hogging all the space in the market and price-gouging at the checkout. People literally cry when they buy groceries. The member's party has said nothing about the reality of this situation. New Democrats have a solution, and that is to offer a public option for food. We know that is the real solution. Does my honourable colleague agree, or is he going to keep supporting corporations that are starving people?”
“Mr. Speaker, workers know that progress is won by exercising their right to strike, including the the eight-hour workday, maternity leave and fair living wages, yet the Liberals keep violating this right by using section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes without a fair deal. That is why I tabled Bill C-247 to repeal this strike-breaking tool, and it is supported by the CLC, CUPE, CUPW, PSAC, the Teamsters, the steelworkers and more. Will the Liberals stop attacking workers and support my bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to table e-petition 6709, put forward by condominium owners across the country, calling on the government to recognize that aging condo buildings throughout Canada are experiencing deterioration, while the high cost of construction has made it difficult for many condo residents, families and individuals alike to afford these repairs. We are experiencing a housing crisis in Canada, and the government must provide financial support for housing that works for all types of communities. I echo the petitioners' calls on the government to ensure that federal housing programs reflect the diversity of housing models in Canada, including condominiums.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions. I am honoured to table e-petition 7222, put forward by my constituents in Winnipeg Centre, condemning the Liberal government's unconstitutional and undemocratic Bill C-9 , the so-called combatting hate act. The petitioners note correctly that through Bill C-9, the Liberals have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I stand by my constituents calling on the Liberal government to uphold democratic and civil rights rather than criminalizing protests, and calling on the House to respect the charter and repeal the unconstitutional Bill C-9 .”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition initiated by a strong fellow Manitoban, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers across Canada. This petition calls on the Liberal government to end its strike-breaking tactics, repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold workers' charter-protected right to strike, something that thousands of delegates at the CLC convention voted to support. My and my NDP colleagues' bill, Bill C-247 , which will be debated this week, would repeal section 107. I echo the message from the thousands of workers who signed this petition for the Liberal government to uphold the right to strike in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member talks about how committed the government is to reconciliation while Amnesty International is being quoted as saying, “when it relates to Indigenous rights...we are stepping back”. The member talks about how great the Liberals are at consulting. Bill C-5 , which was passed in record time, violates the constitutionally enshrined rights of indigenous people, yet for Bill S-2 , which will take out discrimination against indigenous women and first nation women in Canadian law, their excuse is that they need to consult more, in spite of the fact that this has been going on for years. I wonder if my hon. colleague can be a bit more truthful about their record. Certainly, researchers and legal experts are noticing their failures.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the court ruled, it is not a zero-sum game, which means that we have real examples where both realities coexist: private property and the recognition of aboriginal rights and title. I want to point out, though, that we are talking about this as if it is something new. That is actually false. In my discourse, I pointed to the Haida Nation case in 2004, where the court determined the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. There is no threat. There is no case in history where indigenous people have gone after a private property interest. They have just fought for their own recognition of aboriginal title.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the multi-million-dollar project in question that was raised by Councillor Alexa Loo. This is what the bank said about why the project did not go through: National Bank initially said in a one-sentence response that “no specific directive has been given to our teams regarding this court ruling.” In a second statement hours later, the bank said: “We cannot comment on specific cases for confidentiality purposes, but what we can confirm is that this is not a factor that is currently taken into account in our financing decisions, and no guidelines have been issued by the bank in this regard.” What does this mean? It means that the fact that they did not receive financing is a separate matter. The bank confirmed it. It had nothing to do with the Cowichan decision.”