Leah Gazan · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“I want to cheer for a bank saying they didn't turn down a project because of Cowichan Tribes. That means Cowichan Tribes aren't causing problems. Project problems are a separate issue.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the multi-million-dollar project in question that was raised by Councillor Alexa Loo. This is what the bank said about why the project did not go through: National Bank initially said in a one-sentence response that “no specific directive has been given to our teams regarding this court ruling.” In a second statement hours later, the bank said: “We cannot comment on specific cases for confidentiality purposes, but what we can confirm is that this is not a factor that is currently taken into account in our financing decisions, and no guidelines have been issued by the bank in this regard.” What does this mean? It means that the fact that they did not receive financing is a separate matter. The bank confirmed it. It had nothing to do with the Cowichan decision.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't agree with you. The Liberal government is not protecting indigenous rights. The Prime Minister should follow the Constitution. Why is his government fighting against constitutional rights in court? That goes against the Constitution and the law.”

“I want people to stop debating a court decision. I think Conservatives and Liberals are trying to score political points by spreading fear. I think they're pitting indigenous peoples against homeowners. The court decision doesn't affect homeowners. It's clear in the decision. Conservatives and Liberals need to respect the rule of law. They need to respect the Constitution. They need to respect UNDRIP. Reconciliation means finding lawful, fair, and balanced solutions. I want people to reject fear and misinformation.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, so 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. It 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. At 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, while failing in their responsibility as legislators to uphold the Constitution and rule of law. The facts are clear. In fact, the Cowichan nation stated in court, “They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private owners.” The B.C. Supreme Court justice reinforced this directly. These are not my words, but from the court: “I also find that, as 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. Just before I continue, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. The court made it very clear. It stated, “The Richmond lands that fall within the Cowichan Title Lands are generally unoccupied and undeveloped, and there are no set plans for their occupation or development other than possible dike redevelopment.” Let us be honest with Canadians: Homeowners 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. The 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. Rights do not become optional, depending on who is affected or whether acknowledging them is politically uncomfortable. We 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. This 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. This Parliament affirmed its application through Bill C-15 in the 43rd Parliament. Let me be clear: UNDRIP 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.” I am here to do some myth-busting today. Canadians deserve facts, not panic designed to divide people against indigenous nations and against reconciliation itself. The truth is simple. The 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. 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”. An aboriginal title and property ownership can coexist and reconcile. Why are the Conservatives putting forward a motion today when people are dealing with the everyday emergency of just getting by? It is shameful. In Canadian history, in fact, there has been no record of a single case where an indigenous nation has displaced property owners. In reality, this whole debate is a complete oxymoron. The 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. 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, and 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. Reconciliation 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, and we must reject attempts to weaponize fear and misinformation for political gain.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say nice words about international law. Why not just agree with me that passing laws assumes we're following it?”

“There is no risk to private property here. The plaintiffs aren't trying to throw out those titles. My colleague should understand that.”

Statements by Members

Right to Strike

2026-05-07

“I'm upset that my political opponents aren't passing my party's bill to repeal a law that limits strikes. This law was used to shut down a strike at Air Canada, and I think it's wrong and discourages fair bargaining. I want my bill to pass so all workers can strike freely without government interference.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, workers from across Canada are supporting the NDP's Bill C-247 to uphold workers' right to strike and repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. The Liberals have repeatedly used this undemocratic law to shut down strikes and undermine workers' fight for fair, livable wages. With Air Canada, the Liberals sided with CEOs and used section 107 less than 12 hours after flight attendants began their strike against unpaid work. This affected workers everywhere. Today, cabin crew representatives from CUPE told me that, after over seven months of bargaining with WestJet, they are concerned that the use of section 107 may discourage management from coming back to the bargaining table as it might believe that the government would shut down any future strike. This is unacceptable. New Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with all workers, whether at airlines, at rail lines, in the public service or in the postal service. New Democrats are telling the government to stop the attack on the right to strike and pass Bill C-247.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“I see both the Conservatives and Liberals as hypocrites who are violating the Constitution. I want my colleague to clearly state whether she respects her duty to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, yes or no.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Liberals have been sitting on this. On spreading disinformation and paranoia, I do agree with the Liberals on that, absolutely. I would liken it to the behaviour being perpetrated by the Liberals. I do not know why they are calling that out when they are doing exactly the same thing. To my question, we know that property rights are protected and, also, that constitutional rights are protected. That includes section 35 of the Constitution, which affirms and recognizes that aboriginal rights and title are not secondary rights. We have taken an oath of office, all of us in here, as members of Parliament, to uphold the rule of law, and that means the Constitution. The Conservative motion that has been put forward suggests that we should not respect the Constitution. I am not just talking about the Conservatives. The Liberals are playing the same game. Does my hon. colleague respect her duty as a parliamentarian to respect and uphold our Constitution and the rule of law, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Labour

2026-05-01

“I want the government to pass a law that takes away one of its powers over unions. This will make me look good to my left-wing supporters.”

Oral Questions

Mental Health and Addictions

2026-04-30

“That's terrible. I think the Liberals should spend more money on my preferred addiction and mental health programs in Winnipeg. The government isn't doing enough.”

Oral Questions

Grocery Industry

2026-04-28

“I want to ban surveillance pricing at grocery checkouts. The government should choose a side: protect people or protect companies. Will the government act?”

Government Orders

2026-04-27

“This government keeps passing laws I don't like. Now they'll have a majority on every committee too. Doesn't that worry you?”