Leah Gazan

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 11 wordswe are not going to build Canada strong with this legislation. Positioning · 11 wordsWe would be building, in fact, a pipeline to the courts.Positioning Claims · 136 wordsFor example, Bill C-39 would limit project review times to an arbitrary timeline of just one year, restricting time and resources for indigenous peoples to exercise their right to consultation and accommodation, ¹as enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.² As AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak has stated, “Any predetermined timeline principally designed to attract investment subordinates the honor of the Crown to commercial imperatives.”³ Moreover, in reaction to the publication of Bill C-39, vice-chief Michael Smithers of Coldwater Indian Band said, “There is anger in our community today, ⁴as we hear that Canada has given the green light to a third Trans Mountain pipeline through the Coldwater Valley....⁵ The Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Coldwater remains unfilled and Canada and Trans Mountain are not legally or respectfully operating in our reserve.” Positioning · 7 wordsIt is a pipeline to the courts.Positioning Claims · 10 wordsNowhere in Bill C-39 is the right of accommodation mentioned, ⁶Reasoning · 24 wordswhich would allow regulators to ignore what they learn in consultations about potential impacts to indigenous and first nations communities and to move forward. Claims · 157 wordsBill C-39 also does not contain any reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the obligation to seek and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.⁷ That is the right to say yes, no, yes with conditions or maybe later. This is despite, through Bill C-15, the government’s being legally obliged to align all past and future legislation with UNDRIP.⁸ I would like to remind the Liberal government that the critical purposes of UNDRIP are found in article 5, that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and that the government must take all measures necessary to ensure its laws are consistent with UNDRIP.⁹ Moreover, as of right now, Bill C-39 repeatedly talks about indigenous groups while, in fact, “indigenous groups” is not defined within the legislation, ¹⁰nor in international law, which recognizes the rights of indigenous nations as “peoples”, not groups.¹¹ Positioning · 19 wordsThe question can legitimately be asked: Is Bill C-39 consistent with UNDRIP? The answer is a very clear no.Positioning Reasoning · 28 wordsThis raises the question of who exactly the bill is referring to, even in the case of indigenous peoples, when it talks about consultation with indigenous “groups” instead. Positioning · 19 wordsWhy is the government trying to use vague language to avoid the clear terminology in constitutional and international law?Positioning Claims · 28 wordsIn November 2024, Bill S-13 was adopted to add to the federal Interpretation Act a safeguard provision, a non-derogation clause, to protect indigenous peoples’ section 35 constitutional rights.¹² Reasoning · 24 wordsI question today whether any measures in Bill C-39 are inconsistent with this non-derogation clause of Bill S-13. If so, which would take precedent? Positioning · 20 wordsIndigenous peoples’ constitutional rights are being attacked, a clear sign of the government once again ignoring the rule of law.Positioning Claims · 131 wordsConcerning these dangerous anti-indigenous measures in Bill C-39, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said, “Our Chiefs are watching the Carney government’s legislative agenda with growing alarm.¹³ Bill C-5 was a direct attack on our rights, ¹⁴and Bill C-39 elevates this to an unprecedented level.¹⁵ This government is making clear and deliberate choices to accelerate development at the expense of the rights of our Nations and our leaders”. The bill would also establish whole so-called regions of national interest, which experts have likened to special economic zones in Doug Ford’s anti-indigenous, anti-environment Bill 5. Bill C-39 would also impose arbitrary review deadlines for complex, large-scale projects with multi-faceted environmental and species risks. In fact, it would give the minister of the One Canadian Economy Act the power to ignore critical species protection laws, ¹⁶Positioning · 4 wordsand we know why.Positioning Claims · 84 wordsThe government is trying to turn a blind eye to species at risk, like the southern resident orcas, whose population has been reduced to 73 adults and whose survival is jeopardized by the government’s careless plans for major projects.¹⁷Unearned certainty According to Charlie Hatt, the director of climate at Ecojustice, “The oil and gas lobby has gotten what it has long wanted, ¹⁸but it does not have to be this way. We can strengthen environmental safeguards while securing our economy by investing in clean energy”. Procedure · 5 wordsLet us talk about water.Procedure Claims · 25 wordsBill C-39 would allow ministers to exempt whole bodies of water from protective regulations and legislation, ¹⁹and to unilaterally permit companies to dump waste water.²⁰ Promise · 31 wordsI am going to be keeping an eye out this Friday, when the government introduces Bill C-37, Off pointwhich would take away the human right to clean drinking water for first nations. Positioning · 25 wordsThe NDP is watching this bill closely.Partly on point The NDP will always stand side by side to protect the rule of law and protect our Constitution.PositioningVague promise