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 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. Amnesty International confirmed the backsliding of indigenous rights by the Liberal government. I want to know if he agrees with me that the Prime Minister should do his duty and uphold the Constitution. Why is his government choosing to put forward litigation against constitutionally enshrined rights in section 35? That is not respecting the Constitution or the rule of law.”
“That is what this decision moves us toward, and we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.”
“Finally, last week in question period, the Prime Minister stated, “Private property rights are fundamental, and this government, indeed, this House, will always protect them.” Property rights are protected, in fact, but so are constitutional rights. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. They are protected rights within Canada's constitutional framework. The Prime Minister is obliged to uphold our Constitution without qualification or question. (1605) Reconciliation does not mean choosing one group's rights over the other. It means finding lawful, fair and balanced solutions that respect indigenous peoples, uphold and honour the Crown, and provide certainty for everyone.”
“We have heard claims that this decision will unleash chaos and endless lawsuits, but indigenous rights and title have been recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court of Canada. Reconciliation through law is not new. Modern agreements across the country have already shown that indigenous rights and private ownership can coexist. Most claims are resolved through negotiation, not litigation. Court cases usually happen only when governments refuse to negotiate, like the Liberal government, in good faith. The leader of the official opposition claimed that Crown lawyers pulled their punches because they would not deny indigenous rights in court, but section 35 rights are protected under the Constitution. The Crown has a legal obligation to act honourably and in good faith in its dealings with indigenous peoples.”
“Why are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful. In Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. In reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron. The true struggle has been for indigenous people to prove aboriginal title on their own lands. Moreover, the Supreme Court has already repeatedly affirmed pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples. For example, in 2004, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia court decision affirmed the need to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown.”
“In fact, the Cowichan nation and B.C.'s provincial government issued a joint statement that the ruling did not seek to invalidate privately held homes or fee simple title. The suggestion that homeowners could suddenly lose their homes is simply false. The court recognized that the Cowichan deliberately tailored its remedies to avoid impacts on third parties like homeowners. The ruling leaves room for negotiated solutions, compensation, shared jurisdictions and agreements that protect existing homeowners while respecting indigenous rights. As a matter of fact, the B.C. court affirmed the Cowichan nation's position that aboriginal title and private ownership are not a “zero-sum game”. An aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile.”
“Article 46, in fact, of the declaration makes this explicit. It states that all provisions of the declaration “shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.” I am here to do some myth-busting today. Canadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. The truth is simple. The court upheld the rule of law. It rejected the argument that unlawful Crown grants could erase indigenous title. That decision does not undermine property law. It, in fact, clarifies it within the framework of reconciliation and the Constitution.”
“Rights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable. We already have clear legal guidance. Section 35 of the Constitution affirms indigenous and treaty rights. Section 25 of the charter protects those collective rights within Canada's constitutional framework. As legislators, we swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. This means respecting the Constitution in its entirety, which includes indigenous rights. It also means respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament. (1600) Let me be clear: UNDRIP was never about placing indigenous rights above the rights of others. It was quite the opposite. It was about balance, fairness, coexistence and justice.”
“It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.” Let us be honest with Canadians: Homeowners are not at risk here. This decision is not about, and has never been about, individually owned private property. It has never been about that, as affirmed by the courts. Not only does the Cowichan decision not affect homeowners, but the Cowichan nation never even intended it to, as stated in court documents. The Liberals and Conservatives need to get out of the business of deciding whether they will respect the rule of law based on political convenience, economic interests or for fundraising purposes.”
“These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, as Aboriginal title and Crown title coexist, it follows that Aboriginal title and fee simple can coexist, as the latter is a derivative of Crown title.” Moreover, the paranoia being fuelled by the Conservatives and Liberals around the threat this decision poses to homeowners in Richmond is unfounded. In reality, the decision affects land that is largely undeveloped and will not displace homeowners. Just before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . The court made it very clear.”
“When did this Parliament, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, decide that some rights matter more than others? This is a dangerous political game. At a time when division is growing across the country, Conservatives and Liberals are shamefully pitting indigenous peoples against communities and homeowners. They are creating unnecessary fear among homeowners who are struggling more than ever just to make ends meet, while failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law. The facts are clear. In fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.” The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly.”
“Mr. Speaker, so here we are again, debating a court decision in the House of Commons, based on arguments that misrepresent and distort a ruling confirming the aboriginal title of the Cowichan nation. This motion does not reflect the actual goals of the nation or the findings of the court. Instead, it attempts to pit individual property rights against indigenous rights protected under the Constitution. It manufactures fear about what this ruling supposedly means, rather than dealing with what the court actually said. It is shameful that the Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading narratives not in fact, but in fiction, so obnoxiously that we can almost hear the gears turning in the fiction mill.”
“Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the motion spoke of putting international law aside and sitting down together about a Canadian version of reconciliation. Does the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition know and agree that the legislation we adopt in this place is presumed to be consistent with our international obligations, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the court documents say, “the plaintiffs [the Cowichan] seek declarations that the fee simple titles and interests in the Federal [claim].... They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private [property] owners.” There is no risk to private property. This has been indicated by the plaintiffs. Does the member opposite understand that?”
“New Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with all workers, whether at airlines, at rail lines, in the public service or in the postal service. New Democrats are telling the government to stop the attack on the right to strike and pass Bill C-247 .”
“Mr. Speaker, workers from across Canada are supporting the NDP's Bill C-247 to uphold workers' right to strike and repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. The Liberals have repeatedly used this undemocratic law to shut down strikes and undermine workers' fight for fair, livable wages. With Air Canada, the Liberals sided with CEOs and used section 107 less than 12 hours after flight attendants began their strike against unpaid work. This affected workers everywhere. Today, cabin crew representatives from CUPE told me that, after over seven months of bargaining with WestJet, they are concerned that the use of section 107 may discourage management from coming back to the bargaining table as it might believe that the government would shut down any future strike. This is unacceptable.”
“I am not just talking about the Conservatives. The Liberals are playing the same game. Does my hon. colleague respect her duty as a parliamentarian to respect and uphold our Constitution and the rule of law, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Liberals have been sitting on this. On spreading disinformation and paranoia, I do agree with the Liberals on that, absolutely. I would liken it to the behaviour being perpetrated by the Liberals. I do not know why they are calling that out when they are doing exactly the same thing. To my question, we know that property rights are protected and, also, that constitutional rights are protected. That includes section 35 of the Constitution, which affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. We have taken an oath of office, all of us in here, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law, and that means the Constitution. The Conservative motion that has been put forward suggests that we should not respect the Constitution.”
“Madam Speaker, today is International Workers' Day. It is a day when we honour workers' struggles for economic justice and human rights. Yet, the Liberals repeatedly use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to trample over the right to strike. They cave to CEOs and their corporate buddies and undermine fair and collective bargaining. Will the government finally respect workers, defend their rights and pass Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' spring economic update lines corporate pockets while cutting life-saving addiction and mental health program funding. In one weekend, 10 clients at Main Street Project died from toxic drugs. That is one organization, and deaths are rising. Five years ago, the government backed the Health Canada expert task force on substance use but has failed to act on its recommendations. How many people must die on the streets of Winnipeg before the government acts?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mirabel for his speech. I would like to address his comment regarding rain dances. I simply want to bring it to his attention. [ English ] I would like to get the member's thoughts on the fact that the Liberal government has put forward a spring economic update that will not allow us to meet our climate targets, while putting billions in a sovereign wealth fund that lines the pockets of big oil corporations. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayers and indigenous peoples, while the Liberals backslide on indigenous rights, as confirmed by Amnesty International. They could actually subsidize their corporate dream through a windfall tax paid for by their corporate friends, but alas, that is not their plan. It sounds to me like they are all in it for their corporate buddies.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals line corporate pockets with sovereignty incentives paid for by the taxpayer, the NDP is fighting to ban creepy surveillance pricing at the grocery checkout. The Liberals shut this down. They have a second chance. Today's spring economic statement is another chance to decide who they stand with: people getting ripped off at the grocery checkouts or companies that are exploiting the population. Will they act and ban surveillance pricing once and for all, or will they keep protecting corporate profits?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9 , Bill C-5 and Bill C-12 . Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was such a pleasure working with my hon. colleague in the status of women committee. I certainly miss being on that committee. Part of the reason why modern treaties, when they are done right, are so important is that nations are able to determine how they wish to deal with those matters, and that includes the safety of their members. That includes women within their nation. Let us not forget that prior to colonization, we did not have a crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women, girls and diverse-gendered folks. That happened since colonization. Our communities were healthy. Asserting our sovereignty, asserting our self-determination, is a way to support healthy communities and healthy families.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really clear. No legislation going forward, certainly not this treaty and certainly not the implementation bill, is without issue. All bills have amendments when they go to committee, and that would give us an opportunity to provide the clarity that is needed to help other nations, or even other Métis nations that are having difficulties with the bill, to have more assurance.”
“Mr. Speaker, no legislation ever goes to committee without critique. Committees are important to make sure we get things right, get other opinions, get expert testimony and make sure that, when the bill is actually signed off and passes royal assent, we do not end up in the courts. We need to make sure this is ironclad. This is a big deal for Winnipeg. As the hon. member mentioned, the Manitoba Métis Federation and many other indigenous peoples in Winnipeg are building our city. We need to make sure that goes forward smoothly and without a hitch.”
“We will support it because we recognize the long-standing struggle of the Red River Métis for recognition, but we also have to do our job as legislators. We have to ask hard questions. We will listen carefully. We will work to ensure this legislation reflects the voices of those it impacts. Reconciliation demands more than words. It demands that we act with integrity, humility and honesty. It demands that we act with a clear commitment to justice. The path forward must be guided by one principle above all else: The rights, dignity and sovereignty of indigenous peoples are not negotiable. Let us move forward with that understanding. Let us do the work properly and let us ensure, when we pass legislation like Bill C-21 , that we are not only recognizing rights, but truly upholding them.”
“It matters for how treaties are understood, how jurisdictions are respected and how relationships between indigenous nations are upheld. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past, where decisions were imposed rather than co-developed, and where rights were ignored rather than respected. We have an opportunity here to do better and to move forward in a way that honours the inherent right to self-government, to strengthen the legal recognition of Métis governance and to ensure that the rights of all indigenous peoples are upheld, not just in principle, but in practice. Yes, we will support the bill at second reading. We will support it, because we believe in self-determination. In fact, we believe in the right of self-determination of all peoples.”
“We have seen promises of partnership followed by actions that erode trust. When the government tells indigenous peoples to trust them on the bill before us, it is not an abstract question, it is grounded in lived experience. Trust is not given, it is earned, and it must be earned again and again through action. That is why the committee study will be crucial. We must hear directly from indigenous people, Métis citizens, first nations and those who support this treaty, but also those who have concerns. We must create space for those voices to shape this legislation, to identify risks and to propose solutions, because getting this right matters. Getting this right will impact relationships, either positively or negatively. It matters not just for the Red River Métis, but for the broader framework of indigenous rights in this country.”
“Is it the goal of the government to hold up indigenous peoples in the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court? If we are truly committed to reconciliation, then we must be equally committed to doing this work properly. This means listening. That means engaging in good faith. That means ensuring that one nation's recognition does not come at the expense of another's rights. Reconciliation is not a check box. It is not a slogan. It is a process rooted in respect, accountability and truth. Truth requires us to acknowledge sometimes things that are uncomfortable. (1750) The government has far too often failed to uphold indigenous rights when it matters most. We have seen legislation put forward without the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. We have seen decisions made that undermine sovereignty rather than strengthen it.”
“There are concerns that decisions made here could affect relationships and responsibilities that existed long before Parliament. These concerns cannot be dismissed or rushed. They must be heard. That is why I support my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North 's assertion to get this bill to the standing committee for further study. We are proposing an amendment to the bill as well, to ensure that nothing could be construed as denying the rights of other indigenous people nor abrogating or derogating from them. This proposed amendment is justified by article 95 of the treaty, which would force indigenous peoples who believe their rights are adversely affected by the treaty to have to exhaust all appeals before the conflict can be addressed.”
“We support this bill at second reading because we believe in the right to self-determination and indigenous people's ability to define our own futures. We believe that modern treaties, when done right, can be powerful tools to affirm rights, to clarify jurisdiction and to strengthen indigenous governance. However, support does not mean silence or ignoring concerns. Support does not mean we abandon our responsibility to ensure the rights of all indigenous peoples are upheld because, alongside that promise of the bill, there are also serious questions that must be addressed. We have heard concerns from first nations, including many first nations in Manitoba, about how this treaty may impact their rights. There are concerns about land, resources, hunting, fishing and harvesting.”
“These rights are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. They are rights that are inherent and do not come from the Crown. Bill C-21 seeks to give legal force to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and affirms the people's authority to govern their own internal matters; to determine their citizenship; and to structure their leadership in a way that reflects their customs, traditions and priorities. This is significant. It builds on decades of advocacy, resilience and leadership by Métis people. It is part of a longer journey towards justice, recognition and the restoration of self-determination. Let me be clear: The NDP supports this journey.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating President Chartrand and the Manitoba Métis Federation for all of their efforts, and the Métis community of Manitoba. I rise today to speak to Bill C-21 , an act to give effect to the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. At its core, the bill is about something fundamental. It is about whether we, in this House, are prepared to respect what should never have been denied in the first place: the inherent right of indigenous peoples to govern themselves. For generations, indigenous peoples in this country have fought for recognition, dignity and the ability to make decisions about our own communities, our own laws and our own futures. These are not demands. These are rights protected by the Constitution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague a bit more about the concern he has about the lack of provision in the bill to safeguard the constitutionally enshrined rights of other indigenous peoples, which was something he brought up a lot. I also wanted to ask for his understanding of the term that was used in the treaty, which is “collectivity” versus “peoples”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that the treaty formally recognizes Métis self-determination in Canadian law, but it is my understanding that Métis self-determination and self-government were already recognized under section 35. I am wondering if the minister could clarify that for me.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for sounding the alarm on Bill C-22 . As she has mentioned, there are many civil liberties groups speaking out against this bill, like they have done with the majority of Liberal bills that have passed How urgent is it for the Liberals to amend their bill to make sure that they are upholding the charter rights of people across Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, big corporations and grocery chains have found a new way to rip people off. It is called surveillance pricing, which is using personal data to charge people more based on where they live, what they search for online or how often they shop. This is predatory, it is just plain creepy and it is driving up prices even higher during a cost of living crisis. Will the Liberal government support our NDP motion and ban surveillance pricing to finally bring food prices down?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table a petition from my constituents in Winnipeg Centre, who are expressing their concern with the government's ongoing violation of international law by its refusal to close the loopholes in Canada for weapons exports that enable Canadian-made arms to be used for war crimes and genocide. My constituents call on the government to close this loophole by voting in favour of Bill C-233 , the no more loopholes act, which MPs will vote on this week. I will always support my constituents in upholding international law, which is why I encourage all members in the House to say yes to Bill C-233 . I join my constituents in demanding that the Liberal government do the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Jobs and Families said, “Nobody should [be expected to] work for free”, yet this came after the Liberals undermined the CUPE flight attendants' strike against unpaid labour by using section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, siding with their corporate friends. Last week, this anti-worker stance led to a final settlement that CUPE said was not the outcome the union fought to achieve. Shame. Will the Liberals finally recognize workers' rights and support my bill to repeal section 107?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to hear that the Conservatives will be supporting the amendments coming out of the Senate, and I am shocked that the Liberals are so adamant to keep sexism in the Indian Act. That is going to result in the extinction of first nations people. As a first nations woman, I am very offended. I am wondering what led the Conservatives to take the right position in this instance, to ensure respect for first nations people and our rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, 33% of people in Manitoba seeking abortion care must travel to access it. Where is the federal government? Is it fast-tracking projects of national interest without protections for indigenous women and girls? Check. Is it blaming international students, migrants and asylum seekers for the housing crisis? Check. Is it ensuring women and gender-diverse people can access their right to health care? Crickets. If the Prime Minister supports the right to safe health care, will he fund access to that care?”
“Mr. Speaker, today indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people are meeting with government officials to discuss safety in communities impacted by resource extraction, yet this follows a budget that included zero funding for MMIWG and the Liberals' exclusion of indigenous women from the development of Bill C-5 , despite the high rates of violence around these projects. Will the government mandate enforceable community safety plans for corporations and restore funding to address this ongoing crisis?”
“I urge the government to act immediately to fund the North End Women's Centre and uphold community health and safety in Winnipeg Centre.”
“Mr. Speaker, Selkirk Avenue in Winnipeg Centre is home to some of the most vibrant community organizations, but it is also home to some of the highest instances of violence and disappearances of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. The North End Women's Centre is located right at ground zero of this crisis. Particularly since the pandemic, its staff have reported an increase in gender-based violence. To answer these escalating challenges, the centre has applied three times for federal funding to expand its drop-in centre programming spaces and transitional housing units, something I have repeatedly written to the government to support. The government has left the centre without any indication as to whether it will fund these desperately needed supports. We cannot wait when lives are on the line.”
“Mr. Speaker, just like my hon. colleague across the way, I am appalled at the Conservative motion today, but I think the Liberals need to look at their own backyard. Bill C-12 conflicts with the 1951 refugee convention, because the convention does not allow imposed timelines. It violates the right to due process and fair hearings, because it denies the right of asylum seekers to full oral hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is also arbitrary, because it provides wide discretionary powers to cabinet to cancel visas or suspend applications in the so-called public interest. One only has to look to Trump to know how dangerous it is to make immigration cases partisan. Finally, the Canadian Bar Association has highlighted that removing judicial oversight in favour of ministerial discretion weakens the true rule of law. My hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government hides its xenophobia in omnibus bills such as Bill C-12 , and the Conservatives have just laid it all out in front of us with today's motion. I am just fact-checking: How does the Conservative disinformation campaign with today's motion harm migrant, refugee and immigrant communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization defines xenophobia as “the irrational fear or dislike of people from different countries or cultures, often resulting in discrimination and social exclusion.” Is the hon. member trying to fuel the same sort of fascist rhetoric we are seeing in the south? I know the Liberals are trying to do that through Bill C-12 , kicking out migrants and violating international law. Does my colleague agree with me that what he is doing is irresponsible and places—”
“Mr. Speaker, our leaders must ensure that everyone has access to the resources they need to live healthy lives. I fully reiterate the petitioners' call on the Liberal government to respect this fact and create a national food assistance program without delay.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table petition e-6623, calling on the House of Commons to create a national food assistance program. The petitioners say this program is more essential than ever, especially among low-income people, people with disabilities, seniors and single adults with children. Access to food is one of the most basic human rights recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which Canada is a signatory. Canada currently has no national food assistance program, leaving countless people hungry at a time when food costs are soaring across the country. Nobody should have to choose between basic necessities like food, medication, housing or health care—”