Leah Gazan

In response to a question from Kyle Seeback

“I want this bill to pass. The government uses the current law to force people back to work and help big corporations. Unions representing millions of workers want this power taken away.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear that the Conservatives are no friends of workers either, but I have to agree with my colleague. Our current Prime Minister seems to have a worse track record than Prime Minister Harper, if members can believe it, in the government’s use of section 107, which brings up the reason that unions from across the country, including the CLC, which represents three million workers, are asking to repeal it. Who knows how many more times the Liberal government is going to force people back to work, including unpaid work, and side with the billionaire class and its corporate buddies?”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The Liberal government has a bad record on workers' rights. It stopped a strike quickly to force mostly women back to unpaid work, and it continues to hurt workers.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to be really clear. It took twelve hours for the last strikebreaking tactic to be used by the Liberal government to force mostly women back to unpaid work. The current government has a poor track record on workers’ rights, including the only 30‑day time period for labour to respond to other attempts of the Liberal government to crush down the rights of workers. It is a shameful question, and it just demonstrates how the Liberal government continues to turn its back on workers.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It stops the government from forcing striking workers back to their jobs.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“Indigenous rights and private property can exist together. The courts recognized this years ago. Indigenous people are fighting for their own rights, not to take away private property.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the court ruled, it is not a zero-sum game, which means that we have real examples where both realities coexist: private property and the recognition of aboriginal rights and title. I want to point out, though, that we are talking about this as if it is something new. That is actually false. In my discourse, I pointed to the Haida Nation case in 2004, where the court determined the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous peoples, with the assumed sovereignty of the Crown. There is no threat. There is no case in history where indigenous people have gone after a private property interest. They have just fought for their own recognition of aboriginal title.”

• 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 Jamie Schmale

“The bank confirmed that a court ruling about Indigenous land was not the reason it refused to fund a major local project.”

“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.”

• 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

“Amnesty International found that the Liberal government is weakening Indigenous rights. The Prime Minister must protect the Constitution. Why is his government fighting against Indigenous rights in court?”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. Amnesty International confirmed the backsliding of indigenous rights by the Liberal government. I want to know if he agrees with me that the Prime Minister should do his duty and uphold the Constitution. Why is his government choosing to put forward litigation against constitutionally enshrined rights in section 35? That is not respecting the Constitution or the rule of law.”

“The court decision about Cowichan land rights does not take away anyone's home. The Conservatives and Liberals are scaring people about this for political reasons. The Constitution protects Indigenous rights, and those rights can exist alongside private property.”

“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.”

“The previous speaker said we should ignore international law when working on reconciliation. Does the Conservative leader agree that Canadian laws must follow our international promises, yes or no?”

“Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the motion spoke of putting international law aside and sitting down together about a Canadian version of reconciliation. Does the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition know and agree that the legislation we adopt in this place is presumed to be consistent with our international obligations, yes or no?”

“Court documents show this case is not a threat to private property. The First Nation is not trying to take away privately owned land. Does the member understand this?”

“Mr. Speaker, the court documents say, “the plaintiffs [the Cowichan] seek declarations that the fee simple titles and interests in the Federal [claim].... They do not seek a declaration of invalidity regarding the fee simple titles held by private [property] owners.” There is no risk to private property. This has been indicated by the plaintiffs. Does the member opposite understand that?”