Jamie Schmale
Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member opposite was talking about Conservatives not caring about affordability. I would argue that all we talk about, day in and day out, is affordability. What we have an issue with is how many times the Liberal government fails, over and over again.”
“It is actually in the name of the bill we are discussing today, in the indigenous translation. Norman Wells helped fuel northern development, supported generations of workers and families, and provided economic stability for the entire region.”
“It was negotiated under Stephen Harper and Minister Bernard Valcourt. It was a self-government agreement, as the minister mentioned in her speech, one of five potentially coming our way. The government at the time recognized the potential for people to create their own path forward. Again, that is something we support wholeheartedly.”
“Mr. Speaker, in this context, we are talking about prosperity if we are to build energy projects pretty much anywhere in the country, but mostly we are focused on expanding opportunities to the Pacific. That is a lot of what we are talking about.”
“For those reasons, Conservatives, again, can support this piece of legislation. We look forward to dealing with it as it goes through committee, probably in the very near future. We also look at how the government has dealt with a few other indigenous issues within Canada; British Columbia, for one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling of the legislation and her work on the file. In regard to pushing forward Bill C‑27 , we did note that, in 2022 to 2024, then prime minister Trudeau announced an expansion of one million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories, covering 25% of its land and waters, and to reach t…”
The complete record
Every one of 221 lines we hold for Jamie Schmale, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the security of private property rights. Following the Cowichan decision, many Canadians were looking for clear assurances from the federal government about the stability of fee simple ownership and the implications for homeowners across British Columbia. Instead, questions remain about the government's approach in court and about agreements reached with the Musqueam nation, which some homeowners and stakeholders believe have added further uncertainty. Conservatives believe reconciliation should proceed in a way that provides transparency, certainty and fairness for all. We respect indigenous rights. We respect the Constitution. We recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historical wrongs.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, just a few moments ago, implied that this is only a provincial matter. Well, I would say to the member opposite, it is so much of a provincial matter that, just a few days ago, he asked the Prime Minister a lobbed question about this very issue, to which the Prime Minister had to respond. The member says it is clearly a provincial issue, yet he had the Prime Minister answer. The member also talked about the City of Richmond and that the city should have notified the residents. However, they were the only ones in court, in the longest trial in Canadian history, to argue for private property owners. Why did the government not do its job and avoid the situation we are in now?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and 25 of the B.C. Land Title Act, which is the underpinning of private ownership in the city of Richmond and within the province of British Columbia. Again, how does the government expect to use an argument and win at court with something it cannot actually use?”
“That is not misinformation. The government also, in 2018, told its lawyers to stop arguing for fee simple property. That is a fact. There are also numerous other things the government has done that create this uncertainty, and that is what we are arguing here. The government expects to win in court on appeal with an argument it cannot make.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. The member used the comment that we have heard a lot. He was talking about disinformation. I do not think at any point in the debate today implied that the Cowichan band would be kicking people off their land. I do not think anyone on this side has said that in all the time we have been debating this, so I do not know where that member is actually getting it from. We have said it creates uncertainty within the marketplace, regarding private business and private home ownership, and that is exactly what it is creating, so much so that the Province of British Columbia actually had to come in to backstop home and business owners who are trying to obtain financing through the banks. There is uncertainty. That is true.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole's speech was amazing. He is very passionate about the issue, given that the Cowichan decision affects a portion of his riding. He deals every day with people who are worried about the future of their homes and businesses. Maybe we can talk about the government, in 2018, deciding that its lawyers would stop arguing for fee simple property. I think that is the crux of the issue. To that point, the government says it stands up for fee simple property owners, but maybe the member could opine on how the government expects to win a court case with an argument it cannot use in appeal because it did not use it in the lower court.”
“They would like to move, for a variety of reasons, like job opportunities, and they have seen their property values go down a lot further than the market has declined in other parts of the province. There are some real impacts because the government did not do its job. Regarding committee, if the member recalls, there was a notice of motion that we have been told has no chance of being debated because the Liberals disagreed with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my Bloc counterpart. While I do usually get along and agree with a lot of what she has to say, especially in the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I do disagree with some of what she said in her speech, particularly around perception. I want to read to the House a headline from Global News dated December 11, 2025: “Cowichan case blamed for sinking B.C. property deals, including luxury hotel purchase”. That was a few million dollars. The member next to me has another one where a $15‑million hotel project and development was cancelled as well. I have personally met with people in the city of Richmond affected by this decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the minister, but I have some deep concerns with what she was saying. The minister implied that the opposition is fearmongering. I would invite her to speak to the property owners and business owners affected by this, who are watching their properties drop amid the continued questions about whether they are able to refinance their house or business. The minister also spoke about misinformation. I am wondering which part of my speech is misinformation. Was it that in 2018, the government removed arguments for fee simple property within the Cowichan case? Was it that the Province of British Columbia had to step in to backstop business owners and homeowners to be able to secure financing to continue their operations? Was it the proposed developments that were cancelled because of this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think what we saw in the Cowichan case was that nobody informed the property owners that their property could be affected if a decision by the courts was released, which we see now. Nobody let them know. The only reason the property owners in Richmond found out was because of the media or the city itself. The federal government was silent. In the Musqueam agreement, there were no consultations within neighbouring nations. Nobody else was consulted on this agreement. The government is negotiating all this stuff away behind closed doors. Canadians deserve better.”
“People need to have trust in the system, so property owners know that if they buy a piece of property in good faith and pay their mortgage, they are entitled to that property.”
“Mr. Speaker, that goes to the second part of my speech. We have the Cowichan decision, with so much uncertainty around a large swath of land within the city of Richmond. Then we have the Musqueam agreement, which is basically a menu for future talks to land on a treaty or self-government agreement, wherever that may land. In that agreement, the government, knowing all this uncertainty, did not address, or at least put in protections, that private property within the claimed area was off limits and was not going to be on the menu. The government, unfortunately, went ahead anyway, knowing that this uncertainty is spreading across the country. Now we have cases in New Brunswick and elsewhere that are growing because of this uncertainty.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to stand up for fee simple property. Justice Young cited in her very lengthy decision that the federal government was not there to stand up for fee simple property owners. Now the decision has been made, in Justice Young's decision, pointing out that two sections of British Columbia's land title system do not apply to a swath of land within the city of Richmond. It was the federal government that failed those landowners, those businesses owners and those people who are trying to sell their homes and watching their property values sink. That is unfortunate, and people deserve better.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, indeed. That is right. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to argue in court for fee simple property rights in the Cowichan Tribes decision. Because it was, for some reason, in that lane, to not argue for fee simple property rights for the homeowners, now that the case is at appeal, the government cannot use that argument. It cannot use the argument that it stands up for fee simple property rights. The only group that did in the original case, which was Canada's longest trial, I might add, over 500 days, was the City of Richmond. It is the only one standing up, at this point, for fee simple property owners.”
“Unfortunately, the government continues to create uncertainty, and it is growing across this country. It does not need to be this way. I look forward to the questions ahead.”
“Who is defending the certainty required for investment and economic growth? Conservatives are, and we are calling on the Liberal government to act immediately. We are demanding that the government put private property first in the Cowichan appeal by arguing clearly and unequivocally that fee simple property ownership has priority over pending claims. We are also demanding that no future agreement be signed without explicit protections for existing homeowners and property owners: no more confusion, no more silence, no more secretive agreements, no need to leave Canadians wondering if their home is secure. Liberals keep pretending that Canadians should simply trust them, but trust requires transparency. Transparency is what builds that trust. Trust requires governments willing to defend the very people they represent.”
“It has created fear among homeowners and has raised serious concerns among neighbouring first nations with overlapping territorial claims. The Squamish Nation publicly stated that it had not been adequately consulted and warned the agreement could affect the lands it also claims. Again, there was secrecy, insufficient consultation and more uncertainty. British Columbians were stunned to hear Premier David Eby declare that private property will never be part of provincial negotiations. We should think about what that means for homeowners listening at home. If private property is not central to negotiations involving title and jurisdiction in urban regions, then who exactly is standing up for the millions of Canadians whose life savings are tied to their homes? Who is defending the integrity of Canada's mortgage system?”
“That agreement, signed in February, recognized Musqueam aboriginal rights and title across asserted territory spanning much of metro Vancouver, including Vancouver itself, Richmond, Burnaby, West Vancouver and Delta. Despite the enormous implications of such recognition in one of Canada's most densely populated urban regions, the agreement failed to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership. That silence matters. The government and Musqueam leadership later stated publicly that private property would not be affected, but the agreement itself does not clearly indicate that same comment. When dealing with constitutional rights, property ownership and land governance affecting millions of Canadians, that confusion is not enough. That confusion has deepened uncertainty.”
“Instead, they discovered, through news reports actually, that the legal certainty of their property rights could now be questioned. Conservatives called for that emergency debate so Parliament could address those fears openly and transparently. Unfortunately, the Liberals refused, and Canadians are now left to wonder whether that refusal had less to do with reassurance and more to do with the fact that government was simultaneously negotiating other major rights recognition agreements behind closed doors. The secrecy surrounding Cowichan did not end in the courtroom. It actually continued with the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement.”
“That is why on November 20 of last year, I formally requested an emergency debate in Parliament under Standing Order 52 following the Cowichan decision. In that request, Conservatives warned that the ruling risked undermining the indefeasibility protections that underpin Canada's entire land title system. We warned that uncertainty regarding fee simple ownership could affect mortgages, insurance, development, municipal governance and economic confidence across the country. We also warned that Canadians felt blindsided because governments had failed to consult or inform the very people whose homes and businesses could be affected. As my letter stated at the time, ordinary Canadians bought their homes in good faith. They trusted their government to be transparent and honest with them.”
“They are not backstopping those landowners, business owners or families caught up in this legal quagmire. This means fewer homes are being built in a housing shortage, fewer jobs are being created while the economy struggles, and there is less investment and greater instability in an already fragile housing market. Families in Richmond and beyond, all over British Columbia, are seeing their property values drop far deeper than many markets are already showing. Farmers are asking whether their land is still protected. Business owners are asking whether they can still use their property as collateral to obtain financing. Municipalities are questioning the reliability of zoning and planning authority. (1015) This is not merely a regional concern. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, it is a national issue.”
“The Liberals should not have directed federal lawyers away from advancing the extinguishment argument that had previously been part of the Crown's legal position, and they must ensure that this defence is advanced in all future legal cases involving aboriginal title. They must stop pretending that this uncertainty does not exist. This is not theoretical. The consequences are already real. According to reports, appraisers in British Columbia warned that uncertainty surrounding property rights could reduce property values dramatically in affected areas. Financing for major development projects has already reportedly been denied because lenders no longer have confidence in the certainty of title. The federal Liberals are doing nothing to support those affected by this decision. They actually waited for the province to intervene.”
“That is why Conservatives have called on the government to immediately change course. As the leader of the official opposition stated in April, the government must provide certainty, defend private property in court and make clear that Canadians' homes and land titles will be protected. Before I continue, I will mention that I am splitting my time with the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights , a remarkable member of Parliament. I am looking forward to hearing his words. As I was saying, the government must explicitly defend private property rights in the Cowichan decision. The federal government must, going forward, argue before any court, when discussing a new agreement or treaty, that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles.”
“Conservatives believe reconciliation and private property rights can and must coexist. These are not mutually exclusive principles. We respect indigenous rights, we respect the Constitution, and we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historic injustices. Indigenous peoples, I think we can all agree, deserve respect, recognition and fairness. Their histories, cultures and constitutional rights are an essential part of our country. Treaty obligations matter, and section 35 rights matter. However, reconciliation cannot come at the cost of destabilizing the homes, farms, businesses and life savings of ordinary Canadians. It cannot proceed through secrecy and without transparency. It cannot proceed while governments refuse to defend the certainty upon which Canada's entire land title system depends.”
“Canadians already face enough pressure from rising costs, inflation, unaffordable housing and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their home is truly theirs, yet that is precisely the uncertainty that is now spreading across British Columbia and beyond. The Cowichan ruling has raised profound questions about whether fee simple property ownership, the legal basis upon which millions of Canadians own their homes and businesses, remains secure in the way Canadians have always understood it. Instead of providing clarity, the Liberal government has deepened that confusion. Instead of defending homeowners, it withdrew legal arguments that protected fee simple ownership. Instead of reassuring Canadians, it negotiated agreements behind closed doors. Instead of transparency, Canadians received uncertainty.”
“He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a matter that strikes at the very foundation of security, stability and confidence in this country: the protection of private property rights in Canada following the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. For generations, Canadians have believed that when they purchase a home, pay their mortgage, raise their children, build a business or farm a piece of land, that property belongs to them. That belief is not merely emotional. It is foundational to our economy, our financial system and the trust Canadians place in the rule of law. Today, unfortunately, that certainty has been shaken.”
“moved: Motion That, given that, (i) the Cowichan Tribes v Canada decision created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and land, (ii) this decision is already having significant impact on home values and the financing of projects, (iii) the subsequent Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement has deepened uncertainty and failed to say anything definitive about fee simple property, deepening uncertainty and creating a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences, (iv) the government implemented the Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, that includes Litigation Guideline #14, which discourages government lawyers from using all available arguments to defend private property rights, the House: (a) call on the government to put private property first in the Cowichan case, arguing that it has priority over all other title; (b) call on the government to replace Litigation Guideline #14 from the Attorney General of Canada's Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples that prevented the federal government from defending property rights in the Cowichan case, with a guideline that requires the federal government to aggressively defend property rights in all litigation; (c) call on the government to make no agreement without explicit property protection so that fee simple property rights are enshrined in all future agreements with First Nations; (d) call on the government to publish a plan within 30 days to protect property rights for Canadians affected by the Cowichan decision and Musqueam agreement - from the Prime Minister and with specific commitments and timelines; and (e) appoint a special committee with the mandate to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can be taken to protect private property rights in Canada, provided that, (A) the committee be composed of 10 members, of which five shall be from the government party, four shall be from the official opposition and one shall be from the Bloc Québécois, (B) the whips of the recognized parties shall deposit with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee within three sitting days after the adoption of this motion, (C) changes to the membership of the committee shall be effective immediately after notification by the whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House, (D) membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), (E) the Clerk of the House shall convene an organizational meeting within five sitting days of the appointment of the committee's membership, (F) notwithstanding Standing Order 106(2), the chair of the committee shall be a member of the official opposition, the first vice-chair shall be a member of the government party and the second vice-chair shall be a member of the Bloc Québécois, (G) the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118 and that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when at least four members are present, including one member of an opposition party and one member from the government party, (H) the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee, as well as the power (i) to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, within Canada, (ii) to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings, (I) the provisions of Standing Order 106(4) shall also extend to the committee, (J) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, (K) it be an instruction to the committee that it hold at least 12 meetings and present an interim report before June 19, 2026.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2018, the Liberals and the NDP of British Columbia made a deliberate decision to instruct their lawyers not to defend private property rights in the Cowichan case. Now, years later, that same case is before the courts on appeal, and the government finds itself unable to make the very argument that Canadian homeowners expect, which is that their private property rights come first. How does the Prime Minister expect to win, on appeal, the protection of private property rights within the city of Richmond with an argument he is unable to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is something we heard during testimony during the committee process. Many times, the victims did not know what was happening to them. The survivors were not sure what the procedure meant. This legislation would be a way to correct that wrong.”
“It is trauma that is still fresh in someone's mind, and someone will have to live with the knowledge that they will not be able to have any children. This touches everyone, and I think we need to act right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, although my friend from the Bloc is not on the indigenous and northern affairs committee anymore, I did appreciate working with him during the many years of that committee. He was a great asset to the group. I miss his contribution greatly, but I do appreciate his support, both of Bill S-250 , the previous bill, and also of Bill S-228 , the current bill. The member from the Bloc articulated some of the comments we heard and the testimony we heard at committee. That little segment was from just one witness's testimony, but when hearing the story, we could feel the trauma that the person endured. As the member mentioned, it is not as if it happened many years ago. That is in recent memory.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government for supporting this piece of legislation, and not only this piece of legislation, Bill S-228 , but also the previous version that was lost when Parliament prorogued during the last Parliament, which is now coming up on a year ago. Yes, survivors' speaking about this was something that meant reliving a lot of trauma for a lot of people. It was not easy in a lot of circumstances for the witnesses, the survivors, to come forward to speak about it openly and on camera. It was very difficult for them. However, they drew on that courage and wanted to ensure that future generations were not impacted by this. They wanted to ensure that there is a correction here. This shows the importance of the topic, and it speaks to the courage of survivors.”
“Let us act decisively, let us act responsibly and let us ensure that this injustice has no place in Canada now or ever again.”
“They relived painful experiences so others would not have to, and they asked Parliament to act. We must honour that courage. At third reading, the questions before us are clear. Will we ensure that Canada's criminal law reflects the seriousness of the violation? Will we affirm that sterilization without consent is not a misunderstanding or an oversight but a grave breach of human rights? Will we act to protect future generations? Bill S-228 would affirm a fundamental principle: No one's reproductive future can be taken from them without their free, prior and informed consent; no one's body can be permanently altered through coercion or pressure; and no one's dignity is negotiable. The evidence is clear. The need is urgent. Survivors have waited long enough, and I encourage all members of the House to support Bill S-228 at third reading.”
“People lose confidence in the health care system, they delay care and they avoid seeking help altogether, and the impacts on health outcomes are significant. Rebuilding that trust requires attention. The legislation is also a step forward toward reconciliation. Forced and coerced sterilization must be understood within a broader context of policies that have sought to control indigenous lives, families and communities. Reconciliation requires more than acknowledgement. It requires action. It requires structural change and requires ensuring that such harms do not continue. Bill S-228 is a step in that direction. Before I conclude, I would like to again recognize the individuals whose courage has brought us to this point. The legislation exists because survivors spoke out and shared their stories.”
“There has been thoughtful discussion about whether criminal law is the appropriate tool to address this issue. It is true that legislation alone cannot solve every aspect of the problem, but ending forced and coerced sterilization would also require improvements in medical training, stronger consent practices and continued engagement with communities and survivors. However, clarity in the law matters. Criminal law sets boundaries. It signals what conduct is acceptable and provides a mechanism for accountability. Without that clarity, enforcement becomes uncertain, and without accountability, trust cannot be restored. Trust is central to this issue. The relationship between a patient and a medical professional is built on trust. When that trust is broken, the consequences extend far beyond a single incident.”
“Survivors have told us that the absence of clear legal recognition has contributed to silence, confusion and the lack of accountability. The bill would address that gap. It is equally important to be clear about what the bill would not do. It would not restrict voluntary sterilization. It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not affect gender-affirming care. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency interventions. Existing Criminal Code protections would remain in place, including those that protect physicians acting to preserve a patient's life or health. The consent framework would remain unchanged. Consent is not valid where it is obtained through force, threats, fraud, duress or the abuse of authority. Bill S-228 would not alter those principles. It would actually reinforce them.”
“It has already received strong, all-party support and was expedited through committee consideration. That level of consensus speaks volumes. What would the legislation do? It is focused and precise. Bill S-228 would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization procedure without a person's valid consent constitutes aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. It would not create a new offence. It would clarify the application of existing law. It would ensure that sterilization without consent is recognized as conduct that causes serious and permanent harm. (1110) The legislation is meant to offer clarity to this issue, because that is essential. While existing assault provisions may technically apply, they have never been used to prosecute forced sterilization in Canada.”
“The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs has heard from survivors and experts, and it reached a clear conclusion: Forced and coerced sterilization is ongoing and is under-reported, and it requires legislative action. The committee's first recommendation was that legislation be introduced specifically to address the issue in the Criminal Code, and Bill S-228 is that response. This bill builds on the work of Senator Yvonne Boyer, who has been a tireless advocate on the issue. Its predecessor, Bill S-250 , was studied extensively, refined and passed unanimously in the Senate before it died on the Order Paper. Bill S-228 contains that same carefully developed framework. It has passed in the Senate and is here in the House of Commons.”
“It is important to recognize that the issue extends way beyond one individual group. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenics policies. Today, other vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, racialized individuals, intersex persons and those facing systemic barriers, may also be at risk when consent is not properly obtained. At its core, this is not solely a women's issue. It is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental right of every person and their bodily autonomy. Parliament has studied the issue very carefully. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted multiple studies.”
“It exists within a broader context of systemic discrimination, colonial history and structural inequities in our institutions. Witnesses before committees spoke about the power imbalance between patients and medical professionals. They spoke about language barriers, cultural barriers and geographic isolation, particularly for indigenous women travelling from remote communities to access health care. They spoke about the fear of child welfare systems and the long history of state intervention in indigenous families. They also spoke about the erosion of trust. When individuals feel powerless within a system, when they feel they cannot question authority, when they feel they must comply in order to receive care, the conditions for coercion are created. While indigenous women have been disproportionately affected.”
“The consequences of forced and coerced sterilization are profound. It is not a temporary harm. It is permanent. It alters the course of a person's life. Survivors speak of the grief over the children they were unable to have. They speak of trauma, of anger and of the loss of identity. They speak of a violation that they carry with them for the rest of their life. For indigenous women, the impact extends even further. In many indigenous communities, the ability to bring children into the world is not only a personal decision; it is also deeply connected to culture, family, language and the continuity of community. When that ability is taken without consent, the harm is not only individual. It is collective, and it is intergenerational. We must also recognize that this issue does not occur in isolation.”
“They are part of a pattern, and they reflect a deeper problem. At the heart of this issue is the concept of consent. In Canadian law and in medical ethics, consent must be free, informed and voluntary. It must be given by a person with capacity. It must be based on full disclosure of risks and alternatives. It must be given in circumstances where the individual has the time, the clarity and the ability to make a decision without pressure, and it must be free from coercion. When those conditions are not met, consent is not valid. What we have heard from survivors is that these conditions were often absent. Consent obtained under duress is not consent. Consent obtained through misinformation is not consent. Consent obtained through fear or authority is not consent. It is coercion, and coercion has no place in health care.”
“Survivors continue to come forward with accounts from modern hospitals, describing experiences that echo the very same patterns of coercion, pressure, and disregard for autonomy. (1105) We have heard clearly what these experiences look like. Women have described being approached for sterilization at moments of extreme vulnerability, during labour, immediately after childbirth, while medicated, exhausted, and in no position to provide meaningful consent. Some were presented with consent forms they did not understand. Some were told the procedure was reversible, when it was not. Some were pressured through fear: fear of losing access to care, fear of child welfare intervention or fear of being judged or dismissed. Some were never given a choice at all. These are not isolated incidents.”
“These laws disproportionately targeted indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and people deemed by authorities to be unfit. Thousands of procedures were carried out, lives were permanently altered and communities were deeply affected. While those laws were repealed by the 1970s, the attitudes that enabled them did not just simply disappear. Evidence presented to Parliament through Senate committee studies, academic research and survivor testimony demonstrates that forced and coerced sterilization continued after the repeal of those laws and continues to be reported today. Many Canadians believe that this practice belongs to history, but the truth is far more difficult.”
“I would, of course, like to thank Senator Boyer for all of her work ushering this bill through the Senate, as well as groups like the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice for all of their work, community justice and health equity groups and my colleagues here on all sides of the House. It has been remarkable to see the support from every single party in this House and those that are not official parties, like the NDP and the Green Party, which have supported this as well. Beginning in the early 20th century, eugenics policies shaped public institutions and legislation. Provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia enacted sterilization laws that allowed the state to permanently prevent individuals from having children.”
“Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today at third reading of Bill S-228 , an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. At this stage, we are no longer debating whether the issue deserves attention. We are deciding whether Parliament will act. Bill S-228 asks us to confront a reality that is difficult, uncomfortable and deeply troubling: Forced and coerced sterilization has occurred in Canada, it has caused profound harm and it is not confined to the past. The legislation exists because survivors came forward and asked us to act, and today we must answer that call.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government filed its appeal at the last second, but here is the thing: In 2018, the government instructed its lawyers to not make the argument that fee simple property is supreme while the case was in the lower courts. Unfortunately for the property owners involved, the government cannot mount an appeal with an argument that it did not make originally. I ask the minister to please help Canadians and all of us understand how the government intends to win a court case with an argument it cannot make.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing rising costs, economic uncertainty and housing challenges. The Cowichan ruling in British Columbia is now adding a new layer of doubt about whether homes in the city of Richmond are truly secure. Home ownership is the foundation of financial stability for millions of Canadians, yet the Liberals have failed to clearly defend it in court. Will the Prime Minister instruct his lawyers to unequivocally argue that the private property rights of Canadian homeowners must come first and finally provide the certainty Canadians demand?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the government fails to realize is that people are better off, when they have more money in their pockets, they do not need endless government programs. They have a responsibility to provide for their own families through good jobs, yet we have a cost of living crisis. There are 30,000 more children living in poverty. There are so many food-insecure households in this country. The number has doubled, and now working parents cannot even afford to put food on the table. How much worse does it have to get before the Liberal government lowers costs, fixes the economy and lets Canadian families keep more of what they earn?”