Leah Gazan · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-18

“I want the Prime Minister to apologize and give everybody clean water. I don't care what it costs.”

Statements by Members

Clean Water

2026-06-18

“I'm disappointed the government's new water bill doesn't recognize clean water as a human right for First Nations or deal with pollution from resource extraction that goes beyond reserve boundaries. I'll go home to Winnipeg Centre, which I call the centre of the universe, and come back ready to keep fighting in the fall.”

Official Hansard

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. This bill does not recognize safe, clean water as a human right for first nations. Worse, it limits protections to reserve boundaries while ignoring aboriginal title and the reality that pollution from resource extraction flows beyond reserve lines, contaminating the waters our nations depend on. As the session ends, I will return home to Winnipeg Centre, which I have lovingly nicknamed “the centre of the universe”. It is a community built on care and solidarity, where we understand the importance of always placing community at the centre. I will rest, restore my spirit and return in the fall ready to keep fighting for a better future for everyone.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-17

“I want this bill to apply UNDRIP everywhere, not only on reserves. I demand the minister confirm that.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-15

“You are all talk about consulting. Pass this bill right now. Stop making excuses. It's easy. Just pass it.”

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I don't like the government's priorities. They should listen to women's groups instead of supporting big tech companies. The minister responsible hasn't done enough to address concerns about AI.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about deepfakes. In spite of the fact that the minister responsible for AI has been asked by several womens organizations and by people impacted by deepfakes, the government has voted to support media giants such as Elon Musk in programs such as Grok. I would like to note that this is a problem under the purview of the minister of AI, who has failed completely to address the widespread concerns and fears of folks across Canada about the social media consequences of AI. In March of this year, I requested information on the Order Paper question concerning meetings the minister has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI, and I learned that he has taken absolutely zero meetings. Instead, the Liberals have been more concerned with—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say you support the inquiry's recommendations. But you haven't done them. A basic income was one. You've only done three things from the whole list. Do more of those if you really want to help.”

“This bill won't stop the cause of violence. It only reacts after violence happens. I want more money spent preventing violence in my riding. The government should spend lots more money to show it cares.”

“I want to look like I care about women and children by saying the government isn't doing enough. I'll keep asking for more money and programs, but I'm really just talking. I won't actually fix anything.”

Official Hansard

moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C‑16, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 9 and 10 on page 18. Motion No. 2 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 63. Motion No. 3 That Bill C‑16 be amended by deleting Clause 87. She said: I am happy to rise today on Bill C-16, as this is a very far-reaching bill. My colleague and I have studied this bill very carefully and sought to amend it significantly while it was reviewed by the justice and human rights committee. The amendments were submitted by women's legal organizations, including NAWL and LEAF, and Senator Kim Pate. I thank them for their participation in trying to strengthen the bill. As noted in the title, the government claims that the bill is about protecting women and children, but this is very difficult because, I have to say, although the bill is a response to violence, it fails to actually address what women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations have been wanting: more money and more support in trying to prevent violence before it occurs. It was those very amendments that were submitted to try to improve the bill, based on the advice of organizations representing women and gender-diverse people, nearly all of which the Liberals and the Conservatives together voted down. It is unfortunate. It is also important to note, and make people aware of, the failing record of the Liberal government when it comes to upholding the safety and well-being of women, children and gender-diverse people. Instead of prioritizing this crisis facing women and children across the country, the government has been fast-tracking legislation that undermines our safety. In fact, just yesterday, the CCPA published a report on behalf of the National Family and Survivors Circle demonstrating that the Liberals' failure to adequately fund programs surrounding the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, and their failure to advance any progress toward implementing the 231 calls for justice, is actually placing indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks in more difficult and violent situations. This is very personal to me because the very riding of Winnipeg Centre has been noted as “ground zero” for the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, girls and diverse gendered folks. This is the very government that right now is stalling Bill S‑2 at committee, stalling on taking sexism out of the Indian Act, sexism that has been perpetrated against indigenous women, something that was noted by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal at the UN as one of the resulting impacts of what it called the “ongoing genocide [of] Indigenous Peoples” in Canada. We know that since the pandemic, rates of gender-based violence have actually increased, not decreased, and the government has allowed, in the middle of an ongoing crisis of violence, prevention programs to expire by doing things like cutting funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality. Meanwhile, this year's child poverty report by Campaign 2000 states that child poverty has increased for the third consecutive year and has more than doubled since 2020, reaching 10.7%, or 802,000 children. At this rate, the report says, it will take almost 400 years to eliminate child poverty in Canada. It is one the reasons that since being elected, I have tried to fight for a guaranteed livable basic income to be implemented. We know that income guarantees in this country are not livable, and we know that women's organizations across the country have indicated that a guaranteed livable basic income is one of the most foundational programs that the government could put in place to assist with the elevating crisis of violence against indigenous women and girls, all women, in this country. Instead of finding programs or investing in prevention programs, the Liberals have joined the Conservatives in advancing carceral approaches to public safety that fail to address the roots of the crisis of violence against women and children in this country. Investing in prevention before the crime happens, before the femicide happens, is something that would create meaningful change so that we would never have to hear about the unfortunate circumstance of violence that occurs because of a lack of investment in violence prevention programs. It is really sad that the government only wants to deal with the crisis after the fact, after the murder or the violence has taken place. We need to invest in prevention, and that is something that has been echoed strongly by women's organizations and gender-diverse organizations across the country. Investing at the latter end without dealing with prevention means we will not see, unfortunately, a significant decrease in violence. The NDP has always taken seriously the safety and well-being of women, gender-diverse people and children. We welcome a formal acknowledgement of femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. We are advancing solutions to get at the root of the problem we face rather than simply dealing with it after it is too late. Take, for example, what I worked on with families and advocates with the implementation of the red dress alert system, something the government fails to fund, to ensure that should somebody go missing, they must be found. Where is the funding? Where is the support for that initiative? One of the critical problems that women's organizations brought up, which is under the purview of the Minister of AI, is the problem of deepfakes being used and benefiting media giants like Elon Musk through AI platforms like Grok. These sexualized deepfakes are appalling and violate the safety, well-being and fundamental rights of those impacted. That is why the NDP listened to researchers and legal experts from women's organizations who strongly suggested that the language surrounding deepfakes in Bill C-16 be strengthened, since there are currently loopholes that let big tech companies off the hook and allow platforms like Grok that promote sexualized deepfakes to continue doing so. How did the Liberal government members vote on this amendment? They sided with big tech companies, failing to introduce regulations that would actually prevent sexualized deepfakes. I would like to note that in March, I requested information in an Order Paper question concerning meetings the Minister of AI has taken with stakeholders impacted by AI. Can members guess how many meetings he has taken? He has taken zero meetings with women and gender-diverse people. We welcome the inclusion of femicide into—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-02

“You should say whether you'll keep forcing a pipeline through indigenous land without their full consent. I want you to take this tribunal finding seriously. I want more for indigenous self-determination.”

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-05-29

“Why are you so quiet? The premier said something bad. I want you to say she's wrong.”

Oral Questions

Climate Change

2026-05-28

“The government is bad. It isn't doing enough to stop climate change. The world will burn if they don't act now.”

Private Members' Business

Canada Labour Code

2026-05-27

“You asked about women and section 107. Women often have the worst-paid, most exploited jobs. Air Canada's use of section 107 is a disgusting example that especially hurts women and gender-diverse people. The government also has no child care plan. Workers need a living wage, not bake sales. This government is a bro club. I want the government to support Bill C-247 and stop being so anti-worker.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question. It is true that women have some of the worst-paid work and are some of the most exploited workers in this country. It is often a gendered issue. Look at Air Canada flight attendants. That was the most recent disgusting example of the government abusing section 107, impacting a career in which jobs are held primarily by women and gender-diverse people. They also have no child care plan in place. It is another gendered issue where the government refuses to put a work strategy in place to make sure early childhood educators have livable wages and benefits. Liberals still expect us to have bake sales to earn enough money. It is such a bro club with the Liberal government right now. It is a huge issue. I hope the government will come to its senses, if it wants any credibility with workers and unions across the country, and support Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Conservatives are bad too, but Harper didn't use section 107 as much as Trudeau. It's time to repeal it.”

“I don't like that. You're bad at protecting workers' rights. Stop hurting workers!”

“I want the government to stop violating workers' rights. I think the Liberals are on the same page as right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers. I want to support union drives and workers' institutions, not cut them down. If the government doesn't do what I think is right, I'm ready to stand with working communities and union leaders to fight back.”

Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing on behalf of the NDP our deepest gratitude to all the workers, unions and labour leaders who have voiced their support for this bill to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold the right to strike. In just two years, the Liberals have used section 107 eight times, each time violating the Constitution and disrespecting the rights of millions of workers on whose backs our country runs. Members do not need to take it from me. We can ask the representatives of workers themselves. Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, leads over three million workers across the country. Speaking on repealing section 107, she said, “No government should ever be able to strip workers of their right to free and fair collective bargaining. Canada’s unions will fight alongside the NDP to get this bill passed...and ensure that Canada’s labour laws protect workers, not undermine them”. Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE, said, “It's hard to calculate the damage that's already been done by this Liberal government repeatedly stepping in to take away the only leverage workers have at the bargaining table. It's bad for workers' livelihoods, and it's bad for the constitutional rights of all Canadians. Section 107 has got to go”. The CLC, CUPE, CUPW, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, PSAC, the ILWU and more are all standing in solidarity behind this bill to uphold the right to strike. This is the rule of law. One of the biggest outcomes of solidarity is that workers understand their rights. Let us talk about workers' rights. In 2015, in its decision on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution as an “indispensable” part of collective bargaining rights. It is no wonder the Liberals have continued issuing their back-to-work orders in backrooms with CEOs rather than out in the open and on record. They are afraid to leave evidence of their unconstitutional behaviour. Even Stephen Harper's anti-worker Conservative labour minister said, regarding the use of section 107 to end strikes, “If you find a lawyer who can tell you that it's possible...then I wish I had their advice 15 years ago. But as far as I'm concerned, you aren't able to do that.” The issue goes beyond Canadian law. Just last week, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under international law. Workers fighting section 107 in Canada are on the front lines of a global workers' movement. I commend them and say, “Good on you.” I wonder whether the Liberals care, since they are so routinely turning their backs on international law, whether it is a violation of indigenous rights through Bill C-5, migrants' rights in Bill C-12 or the right to peaceful assembly in Bill C-9. New Democrats know where we stand. It is with international law and with workers. We know that throughout Canadian history, and throughout the world's history, workers exercising their right to strike have been absolutely critical for advancing human rights and economic empowerment. In fact, in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, we had the Winnipeg General Strike, which was a legendary moment in our local history. Over 30,000 workers walked off their jobs in protest of exploitation and unfair wages, forcing governments to recognize their rights and helping unite workers' struggles across Canada. This legacy has lived on through the far-reaching social progress achieved by the labour movement. Maternity leave was ensured in no small part by the 42-day strike in 1981 by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, helping set the standard for maternity leave across Canada. That was the same Canadian Union of Postal Workers whose right to strike the Liberal government violated using section 107 in 2024. It is not surprising that the Liberals forget such important lessons when they have so routinely neglected the rights of women workers. We know that their failure to invest in a workforce strategy for child care workers, for example, is threatening women's participation in the workforce. It is also plain that their application of section 107 has had deeply disturbing gendered impacts. Let us remember the most recent example, when CUPE flight attendants at Air Canada went on strike against unpaid labour. In a sector made up of mostly women and gender-diverse folks, it is simply sexist for Air Canada to assume unpaid work could continue to fly. However, when flight attendants exercised their legal right to strike, what did the Liberal Minister of Jobs and Families do? The minister shut them down using section 107 in less than 12 hours. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Liberal minister this: Was 12 hours enough time to consider the devastating consequences of forcing unpaid work onto so many workers, mostly women and gender-diverse folks, just to please the Air Canada CEO, the former one who had to resign? Was 12 hours enough time to decide in favour of threatening draconian fines on all those who dared to insist that they be paid for their work? It is proof of the senselessness of section 107 that flight attendants bravely refused the Liberal minister's ridiculous back-to-work order and continued to fight for a fair deal, receiving a groundswell of support from over 80% of people across Canada. Section 107, we know, hurts workers everywhere. We know this from the example that breaking strikes hurts workers everywhere. Each time the Liberals invoke section 107, it tells CEOs across Canada that they can disrespect their workers' rights because the government will come to rescue them when their bad-faith bargaining results in a strike. When former Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau was asked why he had no plan in place for customers in the event of a strike, he told the whole world he did not prepare because he did not have to. He knew the government would use section 107. That assumption, based on the Liberals' poor record, was just as real as those of the anti-worker Conservative premiers whom the Liberal Prime Minister has grown so close to. When Danielle Smith violated the charter and shut down the legal strike of Alberta teachers, and when Doug Ford violated the charter and tried to shut down the legal strike of Ontario education staff, what did the Liberal government say? There were crickets. That is because it is on the same page as these right-wing Conservatives when it comes to walking over the rights of workers. At a time of rising inequality, inequity and economic vulnerability, we should be encouraging the extension and empowerment of unions and workers' institutions across Canada, not cutting them down. We should be supporting union drives among service workers, gig workers and unpaid care workers, affirming their right to strike should they be offered an unfair deal. It was so inspiring to the NDP to see the beginnings of this movement as Uber drivers in Victoria won a historic victory last month by ratifying a union contract with improved pay, health and safety measures. Given its track record, I ask myself whether the Liberal government sees this victory as just another problem to be solved by draconian back-to-work legislation. For our part, the New Democrats are clear. We offer our warmest congratulations to these drivers and support the struggles for unionization among all similarly exploited, unrepresented workers. As was recently put so well by our dynamic New Democratic Party leader, Avi Lewis, “The greatest gift we can pass on from one generation to the next is a union card”. We are giving the Liberals a chance to do what is right, to respect the charter and stop attacks on workers. However, if they refuse, we know workers will not back down against the attacks on their rights. We can just ask the Air Canada flight attendants. During the Winnipeg strike of 1919, nobody waited around for friends of big business in the government to give workers permission to walk off the job. If the Liberal government decides to stand by its friends, the billionaire class and big multinational corporations, and vote down this bill, New Democrats are ready to stand by working communities, union leaders and human rights advocates to remind the government that it can never take away workers' power to strike.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-27

“There are a few big grocery chains charging really high prices. People are sad when they buy food. The other party isn't saying anything about this. My party wants the government to sell food directly. That's the real solution. Does my colleague agree or will he keep supporting big companies that are making people hungry?”

Oral Questions

Labour

2026-05-26

“I want the government to stop ending strikes and support union demands. Support my bill!”

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Petitions

2026-05-25

“I am presenting a petition from union workers. They want the government to stop its anti-strike tactics. They want to repeal a specific section of the Canada Labour Code. My fellow NDP members and I have a bill that would do this.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“The Liberals talk a lot about reconciliation. But Amnesty International says Canada is stepping back from Indigenous rights. The Liberals passed Bill C-5 quickly, but it violates Indigenous rights. For Bill S-2, they say they need to consult more, even though it's been years. I want the Liberals to admit their failures. Researchers and legal experts are noticing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about how committed the government is to reconciliation while Amnesty International is being quoted as saying, “when it relates to Indigenous rights...we are stepping back”. The member talks about how great the Liberals are at consulting. Bill C-5, which was passed in record time, violates the constitutionally enshrined rights of indigenous people, yet for Bill S-2, which will take out discrimination against indigenous women and first nation women in Canadian law, their excuse is that they need to consult more, in spite of the fact that this has been going on for years. I wonder if my hon. colleague can be a bit more truthful about their record. Certainly, researchers and legal experts are noticing their failures.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want private property rights to block aboriginal title. The courts have never let aboriginal title threaten private property before.”