Leah Gazan

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 81 wordsso 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. Positioning · 64 wordsIt 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. 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.Positioning Claims · 40 wordsAt 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, Positioning · 15 wordswhile failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law.Positioning Procedure · 4 wordsThe facts are clear.ProcedureUnearned certainty Claims · 109 wordsIn fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.”¹ The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly. These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, ²as 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.Unearned certainty Procedure · 22 wordsJust before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.Procedure Claims · 39 wordsThe court made it very clear. It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, ³and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.” Procedure · 6 wordsLet us be honest with Canadians: ProcedureClaims · 54 wordsHomeowners 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. Positioning · 31 wordsThe 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.Positioning Reasoning · 17 wordsRights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable. Claims · 41 wordsWe 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. Reasoning · 26 wordsThis 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. Claims · 12 wordsThis Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament.⁴ Procedure · 4 wordsLet me be clear: ProcedureClaims · 65 wordsUNDRIP was never about placing indigenous rights above the rights of others. It was quite the opposite. It was about balance, fairness, coexistence and justice. 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.”⁵ Procedure · 8 wordsI am here to do some myth-busting today.Procedure Reasoning · 16 wordsCanadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. Procedure · 4 wordsThe truth is simple.ProcedureUnearned certainty Claims · 141 wordsThe 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. 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.⁶ 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”. Reasoning · 10 wordsAn aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile. Positioning · 24 wordsWhy are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful.Positioning Claims · 22 wordsIn Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. Positioning · 9 wordsIn reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron.PositioningUnearned certainty Claims · 258 wordsThe 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.⁷ 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. Finally, last week in question period, the Prime Minister stated, “Private property rights are fundamental, ⁸and 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. Reasoning · 41 wordsReconciliation 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. That is what this decision moves us toward, Positioning · 13 wordsand we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.Positioning