Leah Gazan

In response to a question from Jacques Ramsay

“A court ordered the government to spend that money. First Nations leaders say it is still billions of dollars short of what is needed to give communities clean drinking water. The government should not use children's right to water to score political points.”

“Madam Speaker, that is how sneaky the Liberals are. I want to remind the member across the way that it is a court-ordered amount that the government is obliged to spend. I would also like to remind the member that first nations leaders, including the AFN, have been very clear that it is billions of dollars short to equate the cost of ensuring the right to clean drinking water on first nations. I say shame on the government. It is politicizing the right of our kids to clean drinking water.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The government did not properly consult First Nations leaders on this clean water bill. Consulting Indigenous peoples is not optional. It is a constitutional requirement, and Indigenous people deserve the same basic right to clean water as everyone else.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly cannot speak on behalf of all first nations people in the country. What I can say as a legislator is that the Liberal government is treating the duty to consult and accommodate and free, prior and informed consent as optional constitutional rights. These are not options for the government. It has done that certainly with this bill, where there has been a very clear indication from first nations and indigenous leaders, particularly in this case of the water bill for first nations leaders, that they were not consulted on this bill. I do not know any first nations leader or person, including me, who accepts that I have a comparable right to other people in this country to drink clean water. That is violent. It reeks of ripping from indigenous people the most basic dignity in this country: the right to clean water.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 93 of 100

  Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It weakens Indigenous rights instead of protecting them. It only lets First Nations protect water on reserve lands, not the outside lands where water flows from. It also waters down the human right to clean water. I want First Nations, unions, and environmental groups to oppose this bill, along with two other government bills that attack Indigenous and worker rights.”

“Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act. This represents another attempt by the Liberal government to erode indigenous rights while trying to disguise it as progress. Alongside the violations to the clean water rights in this bill, we are seeing similarly shocking rights violations in Bill C-39, which completely undermines the constitutional duty to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples, along with other critical environmental protections and workers’ charter-protected right to strike. That is why Bill C-39 was getting push-back just yesterday, in fact, from whole regions; whole indigenous peoples and first nations, including the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the Chiefs of Ontario, the APNQL, the BCAFN and the NAN; along with unions like CLC, CUPE and Unifor; and countless environmental organizations. Water is life. It carries our stories and nourishes our lands. It sustains our children and gives us the future we owe to the next generation. Just today, I was joined by indigenous youth who have never in their lifetime had access to clean drinking water, which is a basic right and dignity, and Bill C-37 continues to violate their basic human right to clean water. Without clean water, there is no health, no dignity, no sovereignty and, in fact, no future. Access to clean drinking water is a fundamental human right protected under international law and confirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly article 25, which confirms the right of indigenous peoples to “maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned [or] used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas”. In spite of mentioning many articles in the United Nations declaration, it is no coincidence that the Liberal government has conveniently left that article out, nor is it any coincidence that even in the time since this legislation was tabled, first nations continue to be fought in courts to dispute their right to clean, safe drinking water. Lawyers have claimed that the backtracking of commitments to first nations in Bill C-39 and Bill C-37 is another deliberate attempt to support the fight against first nations in courts. I would like to remind the Canadian public that the Liberals only tabled Bill C-37 due to a legally binding court order. However, after years of broken promises, and ongoing shame felt by folks across the country about ongoing boil water advisories in first nations, the government has produced a bill that weakens indigenous jurisdiction instead of strengthening it. In fact, the bill denies first nations the tools needed to guarantee safe water by limiting the authority to protect water sources only on reserve. As we all know, water does not stop at the reserve boundary. It flows. It moves through watersheds, across territories and through lands where our treaty and aboriginal titles exist. Bill C-37 does not respect aboriginal title and treaty lands, in fact, defining “First Nation lands” as “lands of a First Nation that are referred to in Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and includes water and source water on, in and under those lands.” Bill C-37 is clear in stating explicitly that the lands it considers under first nations’ jurisdiction “do not include lands over which Aboriginal title is claimed by a First Nation or has been confirmed by a court.” This limitation obliges first nations to negotiate with municipalities, provinces, territories and the Government of Canada over source water protection outside the reserve boundary. Are we going to see more crises like in Grassy Narrows and Attawapiskat, whose water was contaminated by industries that were located outside Indian Act reserves? Yes we will. Treaty and aboriginal title are protected under subsection 35(1) and subsection 35(3) of the Constitution and affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our rights extend beyond the boundaries of the reserve and are connected to our lands, territories, waters and resources. By excluding aboriginal title and treaty lands, this legislation would leave first nations responsible for the safety of our waters while denying us our inherent jurisdiction to protect the sources that sustain our communities. This is where the connection between Bill C-37, Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 becomes clear. Last year, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-5, which was rushed through Parliament to create a so-called framework for fast-tracking so-called projects of national interest. Bill C-39, in fact, goes even further, attacking all environmental protections, indigenous rights and workers’ rights, and giving king powers to ministers for overriding constitutional protections. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the government’s current approach does not even satisfy the prior requirement of free, prior and informed consent. International standards are clear that indigenous peoples must be meaningfully consulted before major projects are made. When the federal government unilaterally determines a project that is in the so-called national interest and then only initiates consultation, a foundational decision has already been imposed. This is not about whether we support development or not. This is about upholding the right to free, prior and informed consent. Bill C-37 would also remove explicit recognition of the human right to safe water contained in an earlier ideation of this legislation, replacing it with “progressive realization” of that right. Lawyer Michael Rosenberg has confirmed that the use of this term has everything to do, in his words, “to continue to fight First Nations in court and stand up and say, ‘There is no right and we have no obligations.’” When the Minister of Indigenous Services talks about progressive realization when it comes to the human right to clean water, does that mean nations that have been left impoverished will potentially have to wait until they have the capacity while the Canadian government and big corporations get rich off our lands, territories and resources? I wonder if the Liberal government would be so bold if it was Winnipeg or Calgary or Ottawa to so-called progressively realize that right? The Canadian charter guarantees the rights and freedoms of all peoples regardless of race, national or ethnic origin. We do not have a right to a comparable right under the charter. We have an equal right to clean drinking water, just as any other human being in the country. I say to every first nation, Inuit community, Métis government, ally, labour organization, environmental movement and Canadian who believes in justice that now is the time to stand together. Now is the time to act. We must defend our lands, waters, territories and resources. It is not for ourselves, but for the youth who have joined me today in the House of Commons and for every generation to come, because water is life. Life is not negotiable and neither are indigenous rights.”

“I agree with the member. The government is violating the rights of Indigenous people and helping billionaires instead. I want the member to say more about the government's corporate agenda.”

“Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my hon. colleague. The government claims to be the new Liberal government. I absolutely believe that. It is no wonder that former prime minister Stephen Harper called this, in the news, our Prime Minister’s ideological error. One thing I noticed is that the Liberals are completely in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples. I do not really see a difference, in terms of their corporate agenda for the billionaire class, with the fast-tracking of Bill C-39 at the same time as they are fast-tracking Bill C-37. Could my hon. colleague expand on that?”

“Conservatives spread false information that Indigenous land rights threaten private property owners. This bill does not recognize those land rights, and companies operating near reserves will harm clean water for the Cowichan tribes. I want the member to answer for this.”

“Madam Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives did a mass disinformation campaign around aboriginal title in the Cowichan case, saying that it threatened property owners. We know that the bill would not recognize aboriginal title and that industry has set up outside reserves, which will totally erode the protection of clean drinking water for the Cowichan tribes. Can the hon. member answer to that?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 32 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“This bill limits First Nations control over water only to reserve lands. It leaves out lands where First Nations have title rights, so it does not protect our source water. The government is also ignoring court rulings. I want to know where the Conservatives stand on this.”

“Madam Speaker, it has always a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague. In the legislation, it defines first nations lands as not including “ lands over which Aboriginal title is claimed by a First Nation or has been confirmed by a court.” We know industry is set up by first nations. We also know the legislation would not give first nations jurisdiction over source water and aquifers, therefore limiting our jurisdiction to Indian Act reserve boundaries only. I am wondering if my colleague can share the Conservative position on the failure of the government to even uphold court rulings in relation to this bill.”

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“The government is rushing this bill and hiding things from the public. They also used labour laws to stop Air Canada, port, and rail workers from striking. I have a bill to change the law so the government cannot stop workers from striking, and I want the Conservatives to vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would just say this government totally lacks transparency about everything. I certainly support that. Once again, the Liberals are trying to fast-track legislation. Actually, the NDP is going further than that. I put forward a private member’s bill to totally repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code because of the Liberal government’s abuse of section 107, including the Air Canada workers’, port workers’ and CN workers’ right to strike. I hope the Conservatives will support my private member’s bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I respect the Charter, including workers' right to strike and bargain freely. The minister claims the government consulted with labour. In reality, the government says it consults, but then breaks the Constitution and does whatever it wants.”

“Mr. Speaker, I respect the charter. That means the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining. The minister is talking about how they consulted with labour, but I think labour is experiencing what indigenous people in Canada have experienced since time immemorial: The government says it consults, and then it violates the Constitution and does what it wants.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It rushes project reviews into just one year, which ignores our legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples. It also lets ministers ignore laws that protect endangered animals and clean water.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are not going to build Canada strong with this legislation. We would be building, in fact, a pipeline to the courts. For 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, as enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 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.” 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, as we hear that Canada has given the green light to a third Trans Mountain pipeline through the Coldwater Valley.... 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.” It is a pipeline to the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-39 is the right of accommodation mentioned, which would allow regulators to ignore what they learn in consultations about potential impacts to indigenous and first nations communities and to move forward. Bill 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. 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. 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. Moreover, as of right now, Bill C-39 repeatedly talks about indigenous groups while, in fact, “indigenous groups” is not defined within the legislation, nor in international law, which recognizes the rights of indigenous nations as “peoples”, not groups. The question can legitimately be asked: Is Bill C-39 consistent with UNDRIP? The answer is a very clear no. This 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. Why is the government trying to use vague language to avoid the clear terminology in constitutional and international law? In 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. I 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? Indigenous peoples’ constitutional rights are being attacked, a clear sign of the government once again ignoring the rule of law. Concerning 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. Bill C-5 was a direct attack on our rights, and Bill C-39 elevates this to an unprecedented level. 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, and we know why. The 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. According to Charlie Hatt, the director of climate at Ecojustice, “The oil and gas lobby has gotten what it has long wanted, but it does not have to be this way. We can strengthen environmental safeguards while securing our economy by investing in clean energy”. Let us talk about water. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to exempt whole bodies of water from protective regulations and legislation, and to unilaterally permit companies to dump waste water. I am going to be keeping an eye out this Friday, when the government introduces Bill C-37, which would take away the human right to clean drinking water for first nations. The NDP is watching this bill closely. The NDP will always stand side by side to protect the rule of law and protect our Constitution.”

“I oppose this bill. It hurts workers' right to strike and rushes environmental reviews of big projects. It also lets one minister ignore environmental rules and constitutional rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sharing that I joined the PSAC security workers’ picket line at the Bank of Canada this morning. They are on day 105 of their strike as the government refuses to give them a fair deal and, meanwhile, enforce the NDP anti-scab legislation. It is essential, as I begin this debate, to remember that Bill C-39 seeks to undermine the rights of workers even further, like those who have been on strike for 105 days. It is a dangerous trend that the Liberal government has been participating in, violating the charter-protected right to strike at a time when workers need fair deals more than ever. I would like to tell members that Bill C-39 has drawn severe criticism from all over the country, including from indigenous peoples, environmental organizations, activists, unions and civil liberty groups. In fact, according to the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, Bill C-39 proposes to impose a fixed one-year deadline between the submission of studies by the project proponent and the final decision. Such a rigid timeline would be incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects, which often involve significant risks and which require studies spanning multiple seasons, analysis of cumulative impacts, meaningful public participation and genuine consultation with indigenous peoples. The NDP absolutely supports the need to build a strong economy, but we are very clear that this cannot be done by violating the constitutional rights of workers and indigenous peoples or violating the human right to a healthy environment, and that is exactly what Bill C-39 would do. Bill C-39 proposes sweeping changes to the federal review process, fast-tracking all processes of reviews and even letting one Liberal minister override these processes whenever they think it is inconvenient. Only one minister could make a decision, on a whim, without even consulting their colleagues, overriding any environmental assessment or constitutional obligation. I have to ask. Does the Liberal government think it is above our Constitution and rule of law? We already saw these violations of the Constitution and attacks on the democratic process in Bill C-5 last year, but Bill C-39 would eliminate even previous time limits on Bill C-5, making these constitutional violations permanent. I could not imagine anything worse than Bill C-5, but now we have permanent constitutional violations that this Carney Liberal government is trying to ram through.”