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 4 of 6.
“There is no definition of “public interest” in Canadian law, and no explanation in the bill, so how do we know that the Liberal cabinet, or any future cabinet, would not in fact pursue its own interests or, worse yet, the interests of the Trump administration through this unconstitutional legislation? The bill would also be very problematic for the safety of women and girls. Several women's organizations, in fact, including Women's Shelters Canada, the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, stated, “Survivors of...violence are uniquely harmed by arbitrary timelines and restricted pathways in immigration, which deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they most need it.”
“Madam Speaker, we know that much of what is happening in the States with attacks on immigrants and attacks on asylum seekers is primarily impacting people of colour in cities across the United States. I do not want Canada to appease the kind of racist, dogmatic, fascist behaviour that we are seeing south of the border. Just as in the case of the unconstitutional Bill C-5 , Bill C-12 would create power for cabinet to create “Orders Made in the Public Interest”. This would give the government an unchecked power to stop receiving applications for visas and for other residency permits, to suspend processing of immigration applications and to target measures against “certain foreign nationals”.”
“It is funny to me to watch the member for Winnipeg North across the way smiling during my speech, when his constituency is in fact home to a vibrant and diverse immigrant population. It is a border that I am very proud to share—”
“I am the proud representative of Winnipeg Centre, home to 70% of refugees who move into Manitoba. They are my neighbours and my friends, and they have a right to have their human rights upheld. The bill has raised much concern, including what experts are flagging as a detrimental impact on women and LGBTQ people. We know what the bill is about. It is not about border security, from my perspective, but about appeasing a leader to the south who is showing us more every day that he would even have the military go after his own citizens. It is about appeasing a right-wing, authoritarian leader in the White House. We know his immigration policy includes ICE's ordering masked federal officers to go into communities and arrest people, individuals whose human rights are protected under international law.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today quite disturbed and deeply disappointed that despite the widespread criticism of Bill C-2 from civil liberties groups, migrant groups, experts and human rights advocates, the Liberals are attempting to repackage pretty much the same bill under a new title, Bill C-12 , which has so many of the same alarming and unacceptable abuses of international law and charter rights. The revised border security bill would maintain a host of the government's new immigration powers introduced in Bill C-2 , including the ability to limit immigration applications and cancel existing documents when the government deems it to be in the public interest, all the while pushing through huge, overreaching powers for the Prime Minister and his cabinet.”
“Mr. Speaker, Trump is pushing for Stellantis to ship 3,000 jobs from Canada to the United States. Today, GM announced it is closing another plant in Ingersoll. That is another 1,000 jobs, making clear what we have known from the start, that Trump is set on destroying the Canadian economy. However, the Prime Minister continues to flatter Trump, calling him a “modern man”, a world-class leader. Trump is stealing our jobs. When will the Prime Minister finally fight back against this economic extortion and protect jobs and workers in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, today I honour the late elder Stan LaPierre, whose radiant smile and gentle, wise spirit were gifts to all who knew him. His compassion knew no bounds. His love poured freely into the lives of others, especially through his tireless care and love for families of murdered and disappeared women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as survivors of violence. I will always remember the light of his smile. It could brighten even the darkest of rooms. Though I knew Stan only briefly, I am profoundly grateful for his kindness, teachings and love. His absence leaves a great void in our community, yet his legacy of humanity will continue to guide us. The love of his beloved partner, elder Thelma Morrisseau, reflected deep respect, joy, and devotion. My heart is with her and her family during their time of grief.”
“Mr. Speaker, I often hear members of parties in the House say that they support workers. In fact, I have heard a lot about workers today, yet when I tabled my bill to protect the right to strike in collective bargaining, it was crickets from the Liberals and Conservatives. Words are one thing but action is another. If the Liberal government really respects workers, will it protect their rights by supporting my bill to remove section 107 from the Canada Labour Code, yes or no?”
“I wrote to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance to raise the concern, but I did not receive a reply from their offices. I am sincerely thankful for the hard work of my constituents who helped organize signatures for the petition, and I hope that this sign of support from our community will finally push the government to act and to help uphold the financial well-being of the people of Winnipeg Centre.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents to halt the closing of the Royal Bank of Canada at the corner of Sargent and Sherbrook in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Unfortunately, in recent years, Winnipeg Centre has witnessed the departure of several bank branches in our neighbourhood. This has been very stressful for our community, which is home to diverse populations, including newcomers, indigenous people, seniors and young families, that depend on access to brick-and-mortar banks within reasonable walking distance from their home. The closure of the bank branches leaves our lower-income neighbours more vulnerable to predatory lenders and exploitative check-cashing operations.”
“If members of Parliament truly believe in workers' rights, they must stop siding with corporate interests and commit to repealing section 107, because workers' rights are not optional; they are the foundation of a fair and just democracy. I encourage all members of the House to support my bill that would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code once and for all. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-247. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code . She said: Mr. Speaker, today I am so proud to table my bill to stop governments from abusing section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to force workers back to work. Whether it is Air Canada, Canada Post, the railways or the ports, the message is always the same: When big corporations complain, the government caves. This is a direct violation of workers' rights, the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining. These rights were won through generations of struggle and sacrifice, yet government after government violates the rights of workers whenever it is politically convenient.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to punish workers for exercising their charter right to fight for fair wages and safe working conditions by abusing section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and forcing workers back to work. This undermines collective bargaining and the right to strike. From Air Canada to Canada Post and from railways to ports, the Liberals side with big corporate executives. If the Liberals stand with workers, will the minister repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs provided information about section 35 of the Constitution. The bill actually does not respect section 35 and is in violation of indigenous—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is siding with Canada Post executives to help privatize the postal service. What does that mean? It means cuts to services for seniors, the disability community and rural areas, as well as attacks on well-paying union jobs. Today, postal workers said no more, rallying on Parliament Hill to tell the Prime Minister to make no more cuts to Canada Post. Why does the minister not stop what he is doing, actually do his job, protect public services and stop attacking workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the connections between increased prices on food and the climate crisis, yet the Liberal government will not meet its climate targets by 2030. We know now, in terms of public criticism, that the government has no climate plan. If Liberals are serious about tackling the food crisis, why is my colleague's government not serious about putting in place a climate plan that actually meets targets?”
“Mr. Speaker, too often governments choose expediency over principle, chasing short-term wins instead of building a just, sustainable future. People and the planet pay the price, as with Canada recognizing Palestine as a state but refusing to use its power to stop the genocide or even allow the entrance of Palestinian Canadians back into the country. They are human beings. They matter. I remember when my grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, finally let us open the family photo albums. My grandfather had forbidden it. The pain was too great. Page after page, I saw children, cousins, nieces, nephews whose lives were stolen. I grew up without a family because of genocide. Today I think of Palestinian families facing this devastation, children robbed of futures, parents and grandparents, lonely. Recognition is not enough.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today to table petition e-6488 to demand that the Government of Canada appoint a disability commissioner to hold the government accountable when the human rights of persons with disabilities are violated. People with disabilities make up one in four Canadians, and their rights are affirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and international treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, like the petitioners have suggested, all too often these rights, which are enshrined in Canadian and international law, are violated or disregarded. I want to give a special shout-out to Jay Woodruff, who took so much time getting this petition together, running a campaign.”
“Mr. Speaker, this weekend, thousands of people across Canada joined the Draw the Line protest to send the Prime Minister a very clear message: Enough is enough. Why? It is because the Prime Minister and cabinet are pushing through legislation and measures violating the rights of workers, violating the rights of indigenous people and violating the rights of migrants, while undermining gender equality, civil liberties, disability justice and environmental protection. Why is the Liberal government bulldozing over our Constitution to fast-track its corporate agenda?”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we saw that with Bill C-5, certainly. With Bill C-2 , they are not really getting members up to speak. This is a far-reaching bill. This is an omnibus bill that is over 132 pages. Where are the Liberals? The same people are here talking about the bill. We are talking about a bill that violates civil liberties, constitutional rights and international law. Yes, migrants and asylum seekers have human rights that are protected under international law. We have an obligation, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law. The bill does not cut it. We are voting against it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know, even from what has happened in the States, that tough-on-crime approaches to drugs do not work. We have seen that. What our community organizations are calling for on the front lines of this issue is to deal with the toxic drug supply. We have a record number of overdoses in our community. I am not into political responses that have resulted in people dying in the streets that I represent. I am into public health responses. I am going to listen to the experts, not to politicians with a bunch of really good sound bites.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should join the Conservative Party. That is a lot of sound bites. The reality is that what the NDP opposes is the violation of constitutional rights, the violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the putting forward of a bill that impacts particularly women fleeing violence without a gender-based lens. This has been highly criticized by over 122 lawyers, as well as civil liberties organizations. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is another example of the Liberal government trying to give itself sweeping powers to violate constitutionally enshrined rights.”
“As the Canadian Union of Public Employees has stated in regard to Bill C-2, “Trade unionists and activists know how surveillance can be used in attempts to limit labour and social movement fights for justice.” The NDP will not stand for these infringements on our privacy and human rights. The NDP is calling for the bill to be withdrawn in its entirety. Let us not fall into the trap of undermining our Constitution, our human rights and the rule of law. I am urging the Liberal government to withdraw this harmful bill and to put forward something that upholds human rights and truly ensures that people can live in security and safety.”
“Under Bill C-2 , a survivor of violence can be endangered if their abuser or abusive partner, for example, is a member of law enforcement who, without a warrant, is capable of accessing information on their whereabouts and the services they use. However, we should not be surprised if the Prime Minister seems oblivious to the issue of gender-based violence; he plans to cut funding for women and gender equality by 81%, even though several municipalities have declared gender-based violence an epidemic. I would be remiss if I did not add that Bill C-2 further advances the Liberals' attacks on those who oppose the government agenda, such as land defenders and workers. In fact, just last month, the Liberal government abused its power and its use of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to violate the right to strike.”
“This legislation lacks a gender-based analysis. That has been made clear, full stop. It even fails to acknowledge the reality of survivors of gender-based violence. According to Action Canada, “Survivors fleeing gender-based violence abroad are learning about legal processes while living with profound trauma, often under the control of abusive partners who restrict their access to information and support. Imposing strict time limits on these most marginalized refugees”, for example, “ignores Canada's commitments to gender equality and safety.” That also applies to people fleeing intimate partner violence in Canada.”
“Several organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, including Action Canada, have condemned the bill for allowing a range of powers for law enforcement to access private medical records on abortion history without a warrant, violating the charter-protected right to privacy that people throughout Canada possess with regard to health care services. Even worse, Bill C-2 includes provisions for intelligence sharing with other countries, including the United States, which would allow authorities from jurisdictions where abortion or gender-affirming care is banned to find out whether a person has obtained these services in Canada. What happens when somebody comes from the United States, where some practices have been made illegal? Does Canada want to be involved in jailing people for exercising their human rights?”
“According to a letter sent to the government by 39 civil liberties and human rights groups, and 122 lawyers, Bill C-2 “is a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. It is likely unconstitutional, and deeply out of step with the values Canadians expect our government to embody and respect.” This violation of privacy will be felt the most by those who are already the most impacted by oppressive systems: women, gender-diverse folks and the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community.”
“In fact, through the legislation, the Liberals would be ushering in sweeping surveillance powers for police, intelligence and even vaguely defined “public officers” to enforce upon anyone in Canada. (1935) In fact, if the bill is passed, these actors can, without a warrant, demand people's personal information from doctors, banks and landlords; track their locations, associations and service usage; open their Canada Post mail; and share their data with foreign governments such as the United States government. This is a violation of the right to privacy, a charter right that has been affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court as an essential part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“As we have seen from extremist anti-immigrant and anti-migrant riots in Toronto, entertaining this violent rhetoric is no way to build a unified country. This week, the Prime Minister called Trump a “modern man”, indicating he texts him regularly. Are we going to pretend that this “modern man” is a reasonable partner in protecting democracy, when he is using his ICE police force, the National Guard and the army to terrorize people, his very own citizens, as well as visitors, including Canadian citizens? The bill goes beyond what the Liberals have tried to convince people across Canada it is, a bill to protect our borders. In fact, it would result in violating civil liberties and violating rights to privacy.”
“According to the Migrant Rights Network: [the Prime Minister] campaigned on being different from Donald Trump, yet his very first bill is a shameful capitulation to racism and xenophobia, which abandons Canada’s legal and moral obligations to refugees and migrants. We’re witnessing the deliberate expansion of a mass deportation machine designed to tear apart families and communities. It is shameful. I have to question the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. Are they going to keep undermining rights to appease a president who has demonstrated that he is erratic, or are they committed to upholding human rights? Are they, along with the Conservatives, going to keep entertaining the lie that immigrants are driving the housing crisis, when the real blame lies with landlords and profit corporations?”
“Just like Bill C-5 , Bill C-2 is an omnibus bill. It is vague and dangerous. The NDP is once again calling out an undemocratic power grab. It is clear that the measures are meant to appease Trump, which is the opposite of what the current Prime Minister campaigned on. Do not just take it from me; the Minister of Public Safety said the Liberals carefully crafted Bill C-2 to address Trump's “irritants”, lifting up disinformation that Canada is causing America's fentanyl crisis, appointing a fentanyl czar and enacting draconian border policies that terrorize migrants and refugees and result in the detaining of citizens. That is the American administration the current Prime Minister is lifting up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is highly disturbing that I am again obliged to call out the government's glaring violations of Canada's Constitution, including international covenants to which Canada is a signatory, in Bill C-2 , the so-called strong borders act. This is the second occasion where the Liberals have presented a piece of legislation that would provide government with sweeping executive powers. In fact just before summer adjournment, the NDP had to hold the Liberals accountable for how Bill C-5 undermines the Constitution. Now we are here today debating Bill C-2 , a bill that would disregard constitutionally enshrined rights, undermine civil liberties, criminalize migrants and asylum seekers, and bypass Parliament and public debate. Who are the Liberals targeting? They are targeting marginalized communities.”
“His vision continues to challenge us to be better, to do more and to dream bigger to ensure that the next generations are better off than the ones before. Let us honour Ken Dryden not only with our words but also with our actions. Let us carry forward his fight for universal child care, for stronger schools, for policies that put children at the very heart of every decision we make, whether in Canada or across the world. In the end, the most fitting tribute we can offer Ken Dryden is through our very own actions. On behalf of the NDP, I offer condolences to his wife Lynda, his children Sarah and Michael, the rest of his family members and all those whose lives he touched.”
“(1530) Reflecting on this, I know that, through listening to Ken Dryden and seeing what he did, he pushed all of us to see education as not simply reading and arithmetic, but as the very foundation of citizenship. A strong education system does not produce workers. He reminded us that it produces good leaders, dreamers and citizens with compassion and courage. As somebody who comes from the field of education, we often lose sight of how to build a good country. It goes beyond the pocketbook. It is about ensuring the well-being of all people. Today, as we reflect on Ken Dryden's legacy, we are reminded that true leadership is not about the applause we receive in the arena, but about the lives we lift up in our communities. His commitment to children and education has touched countless families.”
“He deeply cared about the human rights of children, something that is often up for debate in political spaces. What inspires me the most in Dryden's persistence is that he never settled for short-term fixes or political convenience. He called on governments of every stripe to think beyond election cycles and to think about generations. His questions were always about what kind of country we wanted to leave our children. We need to learn from his example. We need to work across party lines to ensure that we never lose sight of ensuring that children in Canada are given everything they need to thrive and are provided with everything they need to live in dignity and flourish as the delicate flowers Ken Dryden was able to see in all children.”
“At a time when we find so many people and groups disconnected from our very own humanity, Ken Dryden reminded us always that every child matters, that every child had a right to dignity, safety and security and to be nurtured as a flower, to grow and to flourish. What inspires me time and again is that he reminded us that early childhood education was not, in fact, a luxury, but a necessity, and that child care was not a private burden, but a public responsibility. As somebody who started their career in early childhood education, that meant so very much to me and early childhood educators throughout the country. He also understood that, if we want to build a stronger country, we must start by giving every child, no matter where they came from, a fair chance to grow, thrive and succeed.”
“It is a sign of his determination, balance and foresight, which would define his life after hockey. He could have chosen an easy path of fame and comfort. Instead, he chose learning, leadership and ultimately public service. He retired, in fact, at the height of his career. Dryden then became a writer, a teacher, eventually a member of Parliament and then the minister of social development. In that role, he championed what he has always believed, which is that the future of Canada rests in the opportunities we give to our children. Ken Dryden had a deep respect for children, who are often overlooked in places of power.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleagues, friends and everyone across Canada that I know, when we hear the name Ken Dryden, as we have heard today, the first image for many is of a towering figure in the net, calm, steady, unshakable, leading the Montreal Canadiens to six Stanley Cups and earning his place in the Hockey Hall of Fame. However, Ken Dryden's greatest legacy is not measured in wins or banners, but in his tireless work to ensure that every child in this country has a chance to dream, learn and succeed. Ken Dryden understood something fundamental, which is that greatness in sport comes and goes, but greatness in service to others is a lasting legacy. Even while he was guarding the net for the Canadiens, he was also finishing his law degree at McGill University.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it quite colonial with the member for Winnipeg North , particularly because indigenous peoples and nations from across this country have been very clear that the government has not fulfilled its duty of free, prior and informed consent. Organizations including AFN, ITK, NAN and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs have come forward and called out the government. They have not received—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just asked me a question. He represented, up until recently, a part of Winnipeg with the highest number of kids in care. Indigenous people are very supportive of building a strong economy. Indigenous leaders, in fact, have said we are not against it. What we are against is the violation of our constitutionally enshrined rights. This is going to put us decades backwards. Any strides we have made in terms of reconciliation, we are going to lose if the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to team up and pass this bill. What is it going to look like? I was around during Idle No More. This is going to be Idle No More 2.0 because we will not sit idly by while our rights are being violated.”
“Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the member for Vancouver East for splitting the bill. The NDP does support removing interprovincial trade barriers and will be voting in favour of that part of the bill. What we will not vote in favour of is violating constitutional rights, violating the section 35 rights of indigenous people, violating section 35(3) constitutional obligations, violating UNDRIP, violating environmental standards and violating the health and safety of workers. We will be proudly voting against this nation-building scheme that is going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.”
“We urge the government to slow down, to reflect and to not let the bill go through in its current form. We urge the government to honour its obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent and to significantly amend the bill to uphold constitutional obligations.”
“Ecojustice says the bill gives “sweeping power for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to exempt major projects from Canada’s most important federal health, safety, and environmental laws” and that it encourages “backroom politicking and closed-door negotiating with powerful corporations.” Right now, half our country is literally on fire. The health of one in four Canadians is being impacted by extreme weather events, and these events will only get worse, as we know. Weakening environmental standards will only make this worse in the future. Nobody voted for an undemocratic concentration of power, violations of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights, environmental degradation or attacks on workers. The Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, are holding our country hostage to prioritize big corporations' interest over everything else.”
“Even beyond these glaring attacks on workers, Bill C-5 would also be a job killer since the government failed to undertake the necessary consultations and fulfill its constitutional obligations, meaning the legislation would inevitably get tied up in the courts, stalling any sort of economic growth. Beyond these issues, countless environmental organizations have warned that Bill C-5 would accelerate the climate emergency, placing countless people across Canada at risk. In fact, one in four Canadians is suffering the adverse health impacts resulting from the climate emergency.”
“It is the kind of legislative behaviour that has resulted in the federal government spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually fighting indigenous peoples' rights and status in courts. Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler claimed, “If you pass this Bill C-5 it will be a long hot summer.... We will not sit idly by and watch any government whether it's Ontario or Canada...come to our territory and take...whatever they want because it is ours.” It is not just the rights of indigenous peoples that are being violated. The building Canada act risks eroding workers' rights, giving the minister the ability to bypass critical legislation protecting workers and eroding standards surrounding health and safety.”
“As such, it has a constitutional status that prevails over any inconsistent legislation. Consequently, Grand Chief Wapachee has specifically proposed the following, and I quote: That the proposed building Canada act expressly provide that it shall not apply to any project to be carried out, in whole or in part, in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This is just one example of many that compels indigenous leaders to strongly believe that Bill C-5 has the very real potential to lead us all to the courts, with the equally real risk of further delays and job losses. We are not building a strong economy. We are building cases for the Supreme Court of Canada.”
“Modern land claims agreements, considered as treaties under subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, contain distinct environmental and review processes in which the indigenous signatories have a direct involvement and participation in decision-making and appointments. These processes would be replaced by ministers and cabinet under Bill C-5 . That constitutes a substantial amendment to these treaties and agreements. This normally and legally requires the consent of indigenous signatories. Consent has not been obtained from indigenous peoples to make these substantial changes. (1640) The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, in his correspondence with the government, correctly reminds us that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution.”
“Article 19 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.” I asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at committee if this obligation was respected. Her response was no. Why? It is because Bill C-5 was, in her words, an “accelerated” process. The minister likes to point out that section 35 rights are mentioned in Bill C-5 and will be upheld, but always remains unconvincingly vague about how her government will achieve that. Allow me to provide just one example around modern land claims agreements.”
“However, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations seems content to simply state that section 35 rights of the Constitution Act of 1982 are mentioned in certain provisions of the bill, or that her government will establish a $40-million advisory circle for what she characterized as “guidance”. As legislators, we are guided by the rule of law. We are guided by the Constitution and treaties, and for the last 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been providing clear guidance with respect to aboriginal rights and treaty rights. Furthermore, Bill C-15 requires that the government must ensure that all laws of this Parliament are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
“Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister insisted that indigenous peoples are “at the heart” of Bill C-5 . In a way, he is correct. The violation of the rights of indigenous peoples is indeed at the heart of this bill, and indigenous leaders who travelled to the Hill this week have confirmed this loud and clear. In response to questions both at committee and in the House, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations failed repeatedly to provide clear answers to the serious concerns raised by indigenous people and leaders. Bill C-5 would have serious and far-reaching implications, as it would allow ministers and the Governor in Council to determine what indigenous rights “may be adversely affected” or what will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”.”