Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, indigenous peoples and environmental groups warned that Bill C-5 lets the government override environmental protections and constitutionally protected indigenous rights in the name of the so-called national interest, but apparently that was not enough. Now with Bill C-39, the Liberals are expanding their power to fast-track major projects and weaken those same protections. After a summer of wildfires burned homes to the ground, why does the government keep bending the rules for corporations while trampling on indigenous rights and putting our environment at risk?

Mr. Speaker, I rise very proudly today to present a petition, which is critical in upholding the ongoing project of reconciliation, put forward by residential school survivors, many of whom are joining us in Ottawa today. They are very concerned that the federal government is not upholding its duty of care for survivors, families and communities on the path of reconciliation. I would like to thank the survivors, along with the petition's initiator, Eva Wilson-Fontaine, who helped get so many signatures. This petition calls on the Government of Canada to renew the residential schools missing children community support fund, which the government is currently planning to phase out this year. It also urges the government to advance survivor supports, which are the healing and cultural services we know are vital to address the trauma endured during the genocidal period perpetrated in the Indian residential schools. The petitioners note that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action 72 through 76, on missing children and burial records, and calls to action 21 and 22, on indigenous healing, remain unfulfilled. As we approach the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, it is critical that the Government of Canada fulfill its moral and legal obligations to uphold the well-being of indigenous peoples and protect the truth of the residential school system that is being shared by survivors against denialist hate. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the petitioners, including those who have travelled to be with us today. There is no reconciliation without truth. There is no reconciliation if we do not protect and honour survivors.

Mr. Speaker, Orange Shirt Day is a day to honour residential school survivors and children, our relatives who never made it home and the parents who were left in deafening silence every September, which was when our children were kidnapped and taken off to residential schools. It was a violent plan to get us out of the way in the name of nation building. That is why, in 2022, the House recognized residential schools as a genocide, but we cannot honour survivors without protecting truth. I again implore the Liberal government to take on my bill to criminalize residential school denialism as an incitement of hate. We must protect survivors. Reconciliation is built on their stories, truth and the suffering they endured. We owe them the protection from any and all forms of hate. On behalf of the NDP, I honour all survivors, parents, families and communities. I lift them up today, not only on Orange Shirt Day, but every day, with all our love.

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since I tabled my bill to add to the Criminal Code residential school denialism as a form of inciting hate. Residential school survivors, their families and their communities have a right to safety, security and dignity. I have spoken to ministers. Survivors want this criminalized. If the government is committed to protecting survivors, will it listen to survivors, take on my bill as a government bill and criminalize residential school denialism once and for all, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the member across the way know that the NDP absolutely supports appointing an independent treaty commissioner, but I am having trouble because the government, time and time again, has demonstrated that it actually does not respect treaties. There is the MOU signed with Alberta without treaty partners; treaties 6, 7 and 8; and Bill C-5, which in fact violated modern treaty rights holders including the Grand Council of the Crees, a bill that was supported by the member who is from that territory. If we were to have an independent treaty commissioner, would the government actually listen to the commissioner and stop violating treaty rights?

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to rise today as we begin another session. I want to start by saying that the NDP absolutely supports Bill C-10. It is something that indigenous and modern treaty partners have long been asking for, an independent oversight and accountability mechanism over the federal government on modern treaty implementation. This is also an obligation that is outlined in UNDRIP, which includes commitments to improve modern treaty implementation. This has been Canadian law, or affirmed in Canadian law, since the passing of Bill C-15 which received royal assent on June 21, 2021. However, as we know, it is one thing to change laws; it is another thing to change colonial behaviours. With the Liberal government, I have not seen this kind of violation of, watering down of or pushing against indigenous rights since the Harper era. It is not surprising that our Prime Minister was taking photo ops with former prime minister Harper at his CEO summit that was held in Toronto just last week. This bill would establish many important things. It would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation and support the office to review and audit federal institutions on the implementation of modern treaties and related agreements, with reports that would have to be tabled in Parliament. It requires draft findings to be shared and many other accountability measures. We know, and in fact on occasion the whole House has acknowledged, the importance in actually achieving reconciliation of respecting our treaties, which are affirmed by aboriginal rights and title that form part of our Constitution. The government has indicated that it is committed to achieving reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Those are noble promises, but unfortunately, as we see a Liberal member and the Deputy Speaker of the House speaking during my time, interrupting my time, in action, this has been demonstrated to be completely unimportant to the current Liberal government. We know that modern treaties are a part of our constitutional framework. We know that modern treaties were intended to establish a mutually agreed upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. Strong treaty relationships work when respected, when people work nation to nation. As the former prime minister Right Hon. Justin Trudeau has said, there is no more important relationship than that with indigenous peoples. When we respect treaty relationships, and when treaty partners actually respect each other, we can flourish, not only as independent nations but also as a country that we now call Canada. This was affirmed and is part of the articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states: Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. It also states in the United Nations declaration that its purposes are to provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration to affirm that the declaration is a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law, something that we affirmed through the passing of Bill C-15. We know the minimum human rights standard, the bottom floor that formed part of the declaration. What is stated in the declaration are “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”, and they must be implemented in Canada. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words, and unfortunately the Liberal government has demonstrated, not through its words but through its actions, that it is not dedicated to reconciliation. In fact, in the year and a half since the election of the so-called new Liberal government, our Prime Minister has made many gaffes in terms of respecting and upholding treaty rights in this country. In November 2025, the federal-Alberta memorandum of understanding on energy development, which endorsed the construction of a new bitumen pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast, failed to include impacted indigenous nations, such as Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7, Treaty No. 8 and other nations, in decisions affecting their lands, territories and resources. The Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations stated, “We are disappointed the Confederacy...was not included at the decision making table prior to or during the signing of the MOU, despite the importance both governments have placed on First Nations inclusion.” This is an example that actions speak louder than words. It went on to say: We require a seat at any table where decisions are made that impact our People. Treaty No. 6 Nations are the only Rights Holders on this Land—there would be no Alberta without Treaty. It is unacceptable that we need to request this. There can be nothing for us, without us. Actions speak louder than words. It is a slap in the face by the Liberal government to treaty partners. It is a clear demonstration of its total disregard of treaties, which was also demonstrated in June 2026, when the government was forced by a class-action settlement to introduce clean water legislation. However, according to the Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige, “Bill C-37 was introduced without broad or meaningful input by first nations. Our letters of advocacy have been met with deafening silence”. This is another slap in the face to treaty partners. Chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations unanimously opposed the Prime Minister's plan for projects of national interest, with AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak denouncing the government's plan, stating, “The federal government can try and set up all the timelines that they want for project approvals, but they can't put a deadline on First Nations rights.” I want to be clear. The NDP absolutely supports putting in place an independent treaty commissioner to oversee the actions of the government, but as we have seen through the actions of the government, it does not respect treaties, does not respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, does not respect the rule of law and does not respect our Constitution and section 35 rights. When this commissioner is put in place, will the government finally listen, follow a path of true reconciliation and respect our treaties?

Mr. Speaker, this is about free, prior and informed consent, and the government needs to stop announcing projects of national interest that involve indigenous people after the fact. In fact, Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige called out the government for its “continued failure to respect our Nation's inherent rights and the treaties.” She said, “the lands and resources being targeted for development and investment are within the treaty territories of the Anishinabek First Nations around the Great Lakes region.” She went on to say, “First Nations will continue to demand justice, respect, and the fulfillment of the Crown’s constitutional and treaty obligations to the original relationship.” That was her response to the latest and greatest debacle: the slap in the face to the treaty at the CEO summit in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly demonstrated that the only partners it cares about are big corporations, which comes on the backs of people, the environment, indigenous rights and community health and safety. If we want to talk about accountability, the government has shown that it is not accountable. It has continued to violate the minimum standards outlined in the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples time and time again over the last year and a half. I am calling the government's bluff. If it is going to put a commissioner in place, it better listen to that commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has rights holder adhesion to Treaty No. 4, I can say that the only thing the government is committed to is saying the right words. Its actions speak differently. It is time for the Liberals to stop using our brown bodies as indigenous people and stop slapping us in the face when they turn their backs on their treaty obligations time and time again. Upholding treaties means protecting our environment, building the country and keeping projects out of the courts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year on International Workers' Day, I asked the Liberal government why it continued refusing to support my bill, NDP Bill C-247, to repeal section 107 and stop violations against workers' right to strike. This bill is supported by workers and unions across Canada. In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs deflected her government's failures and advised that consultations were ongoing concerning changes to the Labour Code. Today, the cat is out of the bag. We learned that the Liberal government has done these consultations and is putting forward an omnibus bill, Bill C-39, trying to turn back the clock on workers' fundamental rights by expanding the minister's ability to shut down a strike and violate workers' rights whenever the Liberals and their CEO buddies deem it inconvenient, as we saw with port workers, flight attendants and rail workers. Of course, they did consult with the CEOs who will benefit. It is not only a historic insult to workers, but also an immense threat to workers' constitutional rights. We know that right now there are countless families, communities and individuals being devastated by Trump's tariffs. Nobody is arguing with that. Nobody is arguing that we are not in a cost of living crisis. Instead of addressing this, the government is siding with CEOs, and instead of giving workers the relief they need to lift up their rights as workers, the Liberals have caved into the wish lists of corporations across this country by pushing forward Bill C-39 and violating their constitutional obligations to uphold the rights of workers, the rights of indigenous peoples and important environmental laws, even after a summer of disastrous wildfires during which we saw communities and homes literally burn to the ground. This past summer, the Liberal government saw what was going on, and once again it has doubled down in favour of its corporate buddies. I want to be clear that workers do not want to strike. Who wants to go on strike to get a reduction in pay, be out of work and be more financially worse off than they are when they are working and being ripped off by the Liberals' corporate friends? Workers have rights, and these rights are protected in international law. The right of workers to walk off the job in solidarity is the only collective means to push back against powerful corporations and CEOs as the Liberal government lines its pockets. This so-called Canada strong plan is being built off the backs of people, workers, indigenous people, our environment and a livable planet. The NDP is very firm in its belief that we must protect the rights of workers. We must protect workers' rights, and that includes the right to strike and free and collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, that was a good story time. I am going to quote my good friend, President Mark Hancock, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. He said, “[W]e will not win this trade war or make Canada stronger by stripping away the Charter rights of our own people.” He also said, “Gutting hard-won rights and protections for Canada’s workers will not help this government deliver certainty – it will do the opposite.” We know the Liberals have used section 107 forcefully to shut down the right to strike eight times in just 18 months. Every time they have shut down a strike, the Liberals in this House have made new excuses for violating workers' constitutionally protected bargaining rights. We know that, at the CEO summit, the government was selling off Canadian public assets like airports, which is getting push-back already from Unifor, and that the government is not on the side of workers. It is smashing down rights. It is shameful.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals tabled water legislation that would fail to recognize clean drinking water as a human right. Today I stood with Grassy Narrows First Nation, where children continue to suffer mercury poisoning caused by decades of government and corporate neglect. This is a national disgrace. When challenged to deliver justice, the Prime Minister's response to a woman living with mercury poisoning was, “I can outlast her.” Will the Prime Minister apologize, clean up the mercury and guarantee clean water for all?

Mr. Speaker, the minister tabled Bill C‑37 yesterday, yet its definition of “First Nation lands” is limited to reserve lands under section 91(24) of the BNA Act. While the bill repeatedly references UNDRIP's application, it appears restricted to reserves. Indigenous peoples have rights that extend beyond reserve boundaries into their traditional territories. Can the minister confirm that UNDRIP, including article 25, applies throughout indigenous peoples' traditional territories and not just on reserve, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table e‑petition 7402 in response to Manitobans who are calling for a public health emergency in light of the preventable passing of too many community members in the recent weeks due to toxic drug supply. They are calling on the government to increase funding to substance use and addiction programs, the community action fund and the harm reduction fund and to expand current projects, ensuring reliable year-over-year supports. They also want to see the creation of an interjurisdictional secretariat on harm reduction to eliminate barriers between governments and expedite the creation of sustainability for frontline services.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to table e‑petition 7135, which calls on the government to modernize the disability tax credit by revising its eligibility criteria and administrative interpretation to recognize the fluctuating episodic nature of disabilities such as multiple sclerosis and to align the DTC with the disability definition used by the Accessible Canada Act and the Canada Disability Benefit Act.

Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the Liberals fast-tracked Bill C-5, gutting environmental protections and indigenous rights, but now with Bill S-2, which would eliminate sexism and racism from the Indian Act, they suddenly hide behind the need to consult. First Nations everywhere have told the government that there is no need to consult on ending sexism and racism, so will the minister end the spin cycle, stop the excuses and pass Bill S-2 before the summer adjournment?

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. 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—

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would not deal with the root cause. It would deal with the violence after it occurs. In my riding, there is a crisis of gender-based violence against women and gender-diverse folks. In the midst of it, there has been a massive cutback in funding to keep people safe before the murder or violence occurs. The government, if it is serious about community safety and about dealing with the crisis of gender-based violence, will listen to the experts and will stop divesting from programs and funding to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, call for justice 4.5 calls for the immediate implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income as one of the key calls for justice to deal with the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls. I want to remind the Liberals that they agreed to implement the calls for justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, but where are they? They are nowhere, and they have responded to only three. Why do they not work on that if they are worried about dealing with the crisis of femicide in the country, and invest in services and support that actually keep women and gender-diverse people safe?

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—

Mr. Speaker, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal concluded that Canada's ongoing policies amount to genocide, pointing specifically to the government's seized value of indigenous lands, territories and resources. The tribunal noted that part of the issue is related to the failure of the government to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. Will the government begin to uphold its constitutional obligations and uphold section 35(3) rights? Will it take this finding very seriously and respect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, or is it going to continue building a pipeline to the court?

Mr. Speaker, Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, recently suggested that the Constitution be amended because she finds section 35 rights problematic for her pipeline dream. What is more troublesome, though, is that the Liberal Prime Minister has remained silent. However, that is not surprising, considering Amnesty International has confirmed that he has backslid on indigenous rights. Indigenous peoples want to know, does the Prime Minister agree with Premier Smith, or will he take the honourable stand and condemn this dangerous proposition?

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce Bill S-205, an act to amend the Corrections and Correctional Release Act, also known as Tona's law. The purpose of Tona's law is to ensure oversight of and remedies and alternatives to isolation in federal prisons, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, which is something that has been called out in international law as a form of torture, in fact. It is something that is still practised in federal prisons today and is something that we know causes irreversible harm to people. The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate people, but we know, with recidivism rates, that people in prison come back into communities not rehabilitated but more likely to offend. It is not surprising that more than 80% of former inmates actually return to prison. I would like to thank Senator Pate and advocates for carceral reform across the country, and I want to honour the memory of the late Tona Mills, a survivor of more than 10 years in solitary confinement, for whom the bill is named. May she rest in peace. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mr. Speaker, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's decision to leave the Liberal caucus was a principled response to the Liberal government's failure to protect us from catastrophic climate change. We see wildfire seasons, floods and whole towns and communities burning to the ground while people wait for another summer when they are going to be choking on toxic smoke. Will the government reverse its backsliding on environmental protections or will it continue to sit by and watch the world burn to the ground?

Mr. Speaker, we know why grocery prices are so high. It is because there are a couple of grocery chains, including the ones owned by Galen Weston, that are hogging all the space in the market and price-gouging at the checkout. People literally cry when they buy groceries. The member's party has said nothing about the reality of this situation. New Democrats have a solution, and that is to offer a public option for food. We know that is the real solution. Does my honourable colleague agree, or is he going to keep supporting corporations that are starving people?

moved that Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 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.

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.

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?

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions. I am honoured to table e-petition 7222, put forward by my constituents in Winnipeg Centre, condemning the Liberal government's unconstitutional and undemocratic Bill C-9, the so-called combatting hate act. The petitioners note correctly that through Bill C-9, the Liberals have contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I stand by my constituents calling on the Liberal government to uphold democratic and civil rights rather than criminalizing protests, and calling on the House to respect the charter and repeal the unconstitutional Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to table e-petition 6709, put forward by condominium owners across the country, calling on the government to recognize that aging condo buildings throughout Canada are experiencing deterioration, while the high cost of construction has made it difficult for many condo residents, families and individuals alike to afford these repairs. We are experiencing a housing crisis in Canada, and the government must provide financial support for housing that works for all types of communities. I echo the petitioners' calls on the government to ensure that federal housing programs reflect the diversity of housing models in Canada, including condominiums.

Mr. Speaker, workers know that progress is won by exercising their right to strike, including the the eight-hour workday, maternity leave and fair living wages, yet the Liberals keep violating this right by using section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes without a fair deal. That is why I tabled Bill C-247 to repeal this strike-breaking tool, and it is supported by the CLC, CUPE, CUPW, PSAC, the Teamsters, the steelworkers and more. Will the Liberals stop attacking workers and support my bill?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition initiated by a strong fellow Manitoban, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers across Canada. This petition calls on the Liberal government to end its strike-breaking tactics, repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold workers' charter-protected right to strike, something that thousands of delegates at the CLC convention voted to support. My and my NDP colleagues' bill, Bill C-247, which will be debated this week, would repeal section 107. I echo the message from the thousands of workers who signed this petition for the Liberal government to uphold the right to strike in Canada.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, today is International Workers' Day. It is a day when we honour workers' struggles for economic justice and human rights. Yet, the Liberals repeatedly use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to trample over the right to strike. They cave to CEOs and their corporate buddies and undermine fair and collective bargaining. Will the government finally respect workers, defend their rights and pass Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' spring economic update lines corporate pockets while cutting life-saving addiction and mental health program funding. In one weekend, 10 clients at Main Street Project died from toxic drugs. That is one organization, and deaths are rising. Five years ago, the government backed the Health Canada expert task force on substance use but has failed to act on its recommendations. How many people must die on the streets of Winnipeg before the government acts?

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals line corporate pockets with sovereignty incentives paid for by the taxpayer, the NDP is fighting to ban creepy surveillance pricing at the grocery checkout. The Liberals shut this down. They have a second chance. Today's spring economic statement is another chance to decide who they stand with: people getting ripped off at the grocery checkouts or companies that are exploiting the population. Will they act and ban surveillance pricing once and for all, or will they keep protecting corporate profits?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mirabel for his speech. I would like to address his comment regarding rain dances. I simply want to bring it to his attention. I would like to get the member's thoughts on the fact that the Liberal government has put forward a spring economic update that will not allow us to meet our climate targets, while putting billions in a sovereign wealth fund that lines the pockets of big oil corporations. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayers and indigenous peoples, while the Liberals backslide on indigenous rights, as confirmed by Amnesty International. They could actually subsidize their corporate dream through a windfall tax paid for by their corporate friends, but alas, that is not their plan. It sounds to me like they are all in it for their corporate buddies. I was wondering if my hon. colleague could give his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.