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 3 of 5.
“Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of Liberal governments, child poverty is rising for the third straight year. Nearly 30,000 more children have fallen below the poverty line, and almost one in five children is now living in poverty. Families are not just struggling; they are falling further behind. Why, after 10 years of higher taxes, higher deficits and higher inflation, are Canadian children worse off under the current government?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a long history of Conservatives supporting progress with indigenous people and repairing that relationship that has been broken for over 100 years. It was John Diefenbaker, a Conservative prime minister, who returned voting, which was wrongly taken by a Liberal government under Laurier. As such, there are many instances of Conservatives showing leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Northwest for his leadership on the file. That is absolutely correct. We have brought up many times in committee and in the House the expansive role ISC has. It was taken from a mere, although I cannot say “mere”, 4,000 or so employees when the split happened between ISC and CIRNAC all the way to 8,000 employees and still counting, yet the actual results in community have gotten worse. Something we continue to press on this side of the House is that if the increase in spending is happening, which we support, we want to see results equal to that spending, and right now the government has not done that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the member for the Bloc on the indigenous and northern affairs committee once again. It is always a pleasure to work with her and to have her knowledge and leadership on the file. As my colleague from Edmonton Northwest pointed out, the government likes to choose when consultation works, and when it does not, as the member for Edmonton pointed out, there is a path forward. Nations that are ready are willing to step up and take this on. I know the government seems to want to buy more time for the department of indigenous services to figure all this out. There is capacity within the department, but there has to be leadership on the political level. We hope the Liberal government takes that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister heard exactly what I said because that is not exactly what I said. That is not even close to what I said. That description was in the context that in the vast majority of cases, status Indians, as they are called in the act, live off-reserve. I was making the link that some choose to return home, but in the scale that it could happen in a manageable fashion, the nations themselves would have time and capacity to prepare for those wanting to move home. I think that is something we all consent to. I think the minister clearly misheard me, because that is not what I said at all.”
“It is about grandparents who fear their legal identity would end with the next generation. For those families, the legislation matters deeply and is the difference between disappearance and continuity. Status Indians represent less than 5% of Canada's total population, but equality is not determined by numbers. Rights are not reserved for majorities. Justice does not depend on scale. If we believe in reconciliation and in equality between men and women, and if we believe that first nations identity should not be legislated out of existence, then the path forward is clear. Bill S-2 would restore fairness, strengthen families, align the law with the charter and help to ensure that first nations identity can be carried forward to future generations.”
“The proposed one-year implementation period, I and many on this side believe, is reasonable. It would allow Indigenous Services Canada to address technical issues and improve processing capacity, including reducing the current backlog of more than 12,000 applications. At the same time, we support first nations' authority to develop and manage their own membership codes. Status under the Indian Act and band membership are distinct, and communities must retain the ability to define their own belonging. At its core, Bill S-2 is not about numbers, budgets or administrative systems. It is about families. It is about a mother who is unable to pass along the status to her child. It is about an angler who cannot take their child onto the boat because that child lacks status.”
“Conservative governments have supported major equality measures, including the restoration of status through Bill C-31 and Bill C-3 , the extension of voting rights to first nations peoples in 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Time and again when Canada has faced a choice between maintaining outdated systems and improving equality and expanding it, we have chosen to expand and improve equality. Bill S-2 , of course, would continue that tradition. There is also a practical consideration. Passing the legislation would now keeps the Indian Act compliant with the charter and reduce the need for ongoing litigation. Instead of waiting to be taken to court again and again, Parliament could now act proactively to fix discrimination where it exists.”
“This legislation is not about special treatment. It is about equal treatment. Others have raised concerns about fishing rights or community resources, but food, social and ceremonial fisheries are collective rights administered by first nations governments. The modest increase in membership expected under the bill would not create sudden or disruptive changes. What would be disruptive would be allowing the current rules to continue, because if the second-generation cut-off remains, the long-term outcome is clear: fewer and fewer status Indians in each generation. In some regions, legal status could disappear entirely within decades. This is not reconciliation. This is legislated extinction. This legislation also reflects the long tradition of expanding rights in Canada.”
“The estimated cost is about $2,000 per registrant per year, which would represent only about 2.5% of the operating budget of Indigenous Services Canada over time. To put this into perspective, Canada welcomes more than 300,000 newcomers each year, and records hundreds of thousands of births annually. Compared to that, the number of new registrants under Bill S-2 would be modest. Most importantly, cost cannot be used to justify denying charter equality rights. There are no misconceptions about tax advantages and benefits. The reality is that tax exemptions apply largely on reserve and are rooted in pre-Confederation protections to preserve first nations' economic capacity. Income tax exemptions apply only to the people who live and work on reserve. Many commonly cited benefits are limited or do not apply in urban settings.”
“Stats Canada estimates that between 200,000 and 320,000 people may become entitled over the next forty years. That is roughly 5,000 to 7,500 people per year after the initial phase. Spread across more than 630 first nations, that is about a dozen people per community per year. This is not a flood. It is a gradual and manageable restoration of rights. (1045) We also know from previous legislation that the projected uptake is rarely reached. Past reforms saw far fewer registrations than were expected. In some cases, fewer than 12% of eligible individuals actually registered. Most new registrants will live in urban areas and continue their existing lives. The Parliamentary Budget Officer previously found that virtually none moved onto reserve after earlier reforms.”
“Inuit and Métis recognition follows a similar logic. The one-parent rule reflects how identity is carried forward in families. Bill S-2 would restore that same principle for first nations, fairly and equally for both men and women. It would go beyond what the courts have required. The Nicholas decision addressed only individuals who enfranchised personally. Bill S-2 and its predecessor extend fairness to people whose entire bands were enfranchised, ensuring that no community is left behind. Let us also remember what enfranchisement meant. First nations people were forced to give up their status simply to vote, to own property or to access basic rights. Today we are still repairing the consequences of those policies. Some people have raised concerns about numbers and costs, so let us look at the facts.”
“Some have called this an administrative policy, but for families facing the end of their legal identity, it is not administrative; it is existential. Bill S-2 is not a one-drop rule. It would not open the door to distant or speculative claims. It would apply to the children and grandchildren of current status holders, people whose connection to their community is real, recent and meaningful. Removing the cut-off would also allow families to pass on homes on reserve, family businesses and traditional rights. It would allow parents to pass on not only legal recognition but also culture, language and livelihood. This is about survival, not expansion. The bill would also align the transmission of first nation status with a principle that Canadians already understand. In Canada, citizenship is passed on through one parent.”
“Conservatives supported that main piece of legislation in a previous Parliament, and we still support it to this day. As for the second part, there are the amendments made in the Senate, which talk about eliminating the second-generation cut-off, because quality under the law is not negotiable. We have heard from many first nations families that have spent years and even decades navigating complex registration rules and that feel their line is coming to an end, not because of their choices but because of a technical formula imposed by the government. The second-generation cut-off was introduced in 1985 through Bill C-31. It applied only to people born after April of that year, but over time, its effect has been clear. It does not simply manage registration; it also legislates the gradual disappearance of status Indians.”
“It is important to note that Bill S-2 has two main parts. The first deals with enfranchisement. In the past, first nations women have been less able than first nations men to pass on their status to their children and grandchildren. That has meant that families have been separated, unfortunately, by bureaucracy. It has meant that parents are unable to pass on their identity, their rights, their homes and their traditions. The bill would also work to correct wrongs in terms of the people having to give up their status to avoid such things as fighting for Canada in a conflict or avoiding the horrors that Canada has inflicted, such as the sixties scoop, among many, many others. It would move us toward a simple and fair principle, that first nations women and men have the same ability to pass on their status to their children.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise to speak in the House. Today, it is on Bill S-2 , an act to amend the Indian Act, legislation that would make an important step toward correcting long-standing discrimination in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Before I get into the meat of my speech, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Edmonton Northwest , on his inspiring words today. He gave a great speech, and he provides great leadership in our caucus on many issues, including the indigenous file. It is a pleasure to work with him and many others as we move forward. At its heart, Bill S-2 is about justice. It is about equality. It is about ensuring that first nations families are no longer divided by outdated rules that have no place in a modern, charter-compliant Canada.”
“I think his offer of unanimous consent would be an amazing way to get the bill moving as fast as possible through the parliamentary system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did run out of time. I had a lot more to say, but most of it was just to thank the members of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. They have been amazing to work with. The friendships I have gained, the people I have gotten to know, have been absolutely incredible. It is unfortunate the journey had some wrongs done in the past. I am glad they saw the strength in themselves to come forward and bring it into the public, to ensure that this does not happen to anyone ever again. I thank everyone who raised their voice, shared their stories and worked with us across the aisle. Again, I thank the member for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish , who is an indigenous person himself, although a member of the opposite party.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the Bloc side for, from what I hear, its support on the bill. Like I said, all parties have been deeply involved in this and have given it a lot of thought. The back and forth between all parties has been very respectful. I think we all agree that harm has been done in the past. I agree with the member. There was intense consultation done across the country by the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, among others who reached out. It seems there is widespread agreement that the legislation is a good thing and needs to happen as quickly as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member and I are good friends on the INAN committee. To those survivors who may be in Ottawa today, I think this is welcome news. I do not think the member could see because he was looking this way, but by the looks on their faces, it meant a lot. I think that is a fantastic idea. I want to thank every party in the Parliament. Every party has jumped on board to support the legislation. I welcome the member's offer.”
“Every day that passes without clear legal protection is another day when someone could face pressure, coercion or violation at one of the most vulnerable times of their life. This is not an abstract policy debate or about whether a woman leaving a hospital will still have the reproductive future she chooses for herself, but about whether our health care system can protect someone's autonomy or override it. I understand my time is coming to an end, so I ask members to understand that Bill S-228 would affirm that no one's reproductive future can be taken from them without consent. Forced and coerced sterilization is one of the most serious violations of bodily autonomy and human dignity. It is time to act, and we should do it now.”
“The second is accountability. When harm occurs, there is a clear legal pathway to investigate and prosecute. The third is recognition. Survivors see that the law acknowledges what happened to them as a serious violation of their rights, and for many survivors that recognition matters deeply. It tells them that their voices were heard, that what happened to them was wrong and that they will not be ignored. Passing Bill S-228 will not undo the harms of the past, but it is a concrete step forward to ensuring that such harm does not continue. Reconciliation requires accountability and action. This bill I feel is both. The urgency of this legislation could not be overstated. Cases have been reported as recently as this year.”
“They shared their stories, often at great personal cost, so that this practice could be recognized and stopped. The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights studied the issue. Its first recommendation was clear that legislation should be introduced to prohibit forced and coerced sterilization. Bill S-228 is Parliament's response to that recommendation. When survivors tell us what justice requires, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. Some have suggested that education and policy reform alone would be sufficient. Yes, education, cultural safety and health system reform are essential, but education without accountability does not prevent abuse. Clear legal consequences matter for three reasons. The first is deterrence. Providers and institutions know there are serious consequences for violating consent.”
“It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency care performed in good faith. Where sterilization is requested, medical practitioners must ensure that consent is truly informed, truly voluntary and free from external pressure. Patients must be informed of alternative contraception options, must understand that consent can be withdrawn at any time and must be given a final opportunity to withdraw immediately before the procedure. Consent would also be deemed invalid if the individual is under 18, incapable of consenting or has not initiated a voluntary request. The bill targets only one thing, sterilization without consent, nothing more and nothing less. Survivors asked for criminalization. They testified before Senate committees.”
“This bill, Bill S-228 , would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under section 268. It would not create a new offence, but would strengthen the application of the existing law. It would send a clear message that the conduct is criminal, serious and unacceptable. The legislation would also clarify the legal consequences. Anyone who performs or participates in coercive actions to cause a sterilization without consent would be guilty of an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. At the same time, the bill would establish clear safeguards to protect patient autonomy and ensure ethical medical practices. Let me also address a concern that has been raised. Bill S-228 would not restrict access to voluntary sterilization.”
“Despite years of reports and testimony, the Standing Committee on Human Resources found that forced and coerced sterilization is continuing today and is both under-reported and underestimated. The committee also found that these practices disproportionately affect indigenous women, women with disabilities and racialized women, and the list goes on, including institutionalized persons. The problem is not simply the absence of law; it is the absence of clarity. (1625) When the Criminal Code does not explicitly name a harm, enforcement becomes uncertain and investigations unfortunately stall. Prosecutors hesitate and survivors lose confidence that the system will take their experiences seriously.”
“It is about the fundamental right of every person in Canada to control their own body, free from pressure, coercion or discrimination. When survivors speak of being judged, dismissed or pressured by authority figures, they are describing not individual failures but systemic ones, and when people lose trust in the health care system, the consequences extend far beyond reproductive health. Care is delayed, services are avoided and health care outcomes worsen. The bill is therefore not only about criminal law but about rebuilding trust. Some have asked why new legislation is necessary. Do existing criminal code provisions not already cover assault? Technically, they might, but in practice, they have not.”
“While much of the testimony and evidence we have heard focuses on the experiences of women, particularly indigenous women, it is important to recognize that this issue is not confined to one gender. Sterilization procedures affect people of all sexes, and the principle at stake is universal. Every person has the right to bodily autonomy and to make free and informed decisions about their reproductive future. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenic policies, and today individuals across diverse communities, including intersex persons and others facing medical vulnerability, may be at risk when power imbalances and inadequate consent policies exist. At its core, this is not just a women's-only issue. It is a human rights issue.”
“In each case, multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination increase vulnerability to reproductive rights violations. Preventing a woman from having children without her consent is not simply a medical violation. It is an assault on dignity, autonomy and self-determination. It disrupts families. It fractures the trust in the health care system, and its effects echo across generations. Forced and coerced sterilization does not occur in isolation. It is rooted in systemic racism, colonial assumptions and harmful stereotypes such as the belief that some women are unfit to be mothers, that some lives are less valued or that some communities should be controlled rather than supported.”
“This is not informed consent. Consent obtained through pressure, fear, misinformation or exhaustion is not consent. It is coercion. The consequences of forced sterilization extend beyond physical harm. Survivors describe lifelong grief, trauma, the loss of identity and a profound sense of violation. For indigenous women, the harm is even deeper. In many indigenous world views the ability to bring children into the world is not only personal but also cultural, spiritual and connected to the survival and continuity of community. This issue does not affect indigenous women alone. The committee has heard evidence that other groups were also at heightened risk levels, such as women with disabilities, women living with HIV and institutionalized persons, among so many others.”
“Media reports in 2015 prompted an external review in Saskatoon, which confirmed that indigenous women had been subjected to coerced sterilization and called for reparations, cultural safety measures and legal reform. That review helped bring national and international attention to the issue and contributed to multiple ongoing class action lawsuits. Survivors continue to report being pressured, misled, threatened and sterilized without full and informed consent, often during the most vulnerable moments of their lives: during labour, immediately after childbirth or while under medication and distress. Some were told their babies might be taken away if they refused. Others were told the procedure was reversible, but it was clearly not. Some did not understand the forms they were asked to sign, and some of them were never told at all.”
“This issue has also been recognized at the national level. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls documented the history of forced sterilization as a tool used to control and diminish indigenous populations with lasting and intergenerational impacts. For decades, Canada has carried the painful legacies of eugenics and reproductive control. Beginning in the 1920s, sterilization policies emerged across the country, targeting those deemed unfit. These practices were formalized in provincial law in Alberta and British Columbia until their repeal in 1970. However, the repeal of those laws did not end the mindset that made them possible. (1620) The practice persisted after formal eugenics policies ended and continues to be reported today.”
“This legislation addresses a profound injustice, one that Canadians assume belongs to a distant past, but it does not. Forced and coerced sterilization is not historical. It is not theoretical. It is happening in Canada today, and that is why Parliament must act. Bill S-228 builds on earlier legislation first introduced by Yvonne Boyer in the Senate as Bill S-250 . Its purpose is clear: to strengthen the Criminal Code so that forced or coerced sterilization is explicitly recognized within the law as a serious form of aggravated assault. The bill would create a legislative framework that acknowledges this practice as part of Canada's broader legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism, which has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities.”
“I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, and to the staff, volunteers and supporters whose tireless advocacy has ensured that survivors' voices are heard and respected and that their calls for justice could no longer be ignored. They are not alone. People First of Canada and Inclusion Canada, formerly the Canadian Association for Community Living, are two other organizations that are standing up for persons with intellectual disabilities, like Roy Skoreyko, a People First self-advocate and member of the Inclusion Canada board, who was also sterilized at an institution at the age of 16 and who now continues to advocate for other survivors.”
“As I read the names, I ask for leniency if I mispronounce any: Jackie Kistabish, Algonquin, from Val-d'Or, Quebec; Kahsenniyo Kick, Mohawk, from Six Nations, Ontario; Sylvia Nepinak, Anishnawbek, from Minegoziibe first nation, Manitoba; Sylvia McKay, Cree, from Peepeekisis, Saskatchewan; Heather Bear, Cree, Saskatchewan; Germaine Henry, Cree, from Chacachas, Saskatchewan; Chasity Kyplain, Cree, from Yellow Quill, Saskatchewan; Nicole Rabbit, Kainai Blood Tribe and Blackfoot, from Treaty 7, Alberta; Lois Cardinal, Cree, from Saddle Lake, Alberta; Nilak Ironhawk-Tommy, Inuit, from Cowichan, British Columbia; Susan Anderson, Métis, from Region 6; and so many more. Their strength, leadership and willingness to relive painful experiences have made this moment possible, and because of them, Parliament will hopefully act.”
“moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-228. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228 , an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. Before I begin remarks, I want to recognize one of the most important aspects of this bill: how it was developed. This is survivor-centred, indigenous-led legislation. This legislation exists because survivors had the courage to speak when silence might have been easier. I want to recognize and thank those who came forward, shared their truths and stood not only for themselves but for so many others.”
“I want to recognize the courageous survivors who are in Ottawa this week, whose advocacy has brought this issue to national attention. I ask that all members support Bill S-228 and help to ensure that this injustice never happens again.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long and painful history of forced and coerced sterilization, particularly affecting indigenous peoples. For decades, individuals were subjected to permanent procedures without their informed consent, including in residential schools and in northern and remote communities. While many believe this practice belongs to the past, it does not. Survivors continue to come forward today, sharing experiences of pressure, coercion and procedures performed without their consent. I am proud to sponsor Bill S-228 , introduced by Senator Yvonne Boyer, which will clarify in the Criminal Code that performing a sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault. This legislation will strengthen accountability and affirm that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental human right.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long and painful history of forced and coerced sterilization, particularly affecting indigenous peoples. For decades, individuals were subjected to permanent procedures without their informed consent, including in residential schools and in northern and remote communities. While many believe this practice belongs to the past, it does not. Survivors continue to come forward today, sharing experiences of pressure, coercion and procedures performed without true consent. I am proud to sponsor Bill S-228 , introduced by Senator Yvonne Boyer, which will clarify in the Criminal Code that performing a sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault. This legislation will strengthen accountability and affirm that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental human right. An hon. member: Mr.”
“Madam Speaker, my friend from Saskatoon West highlighted quite well our position on this bill. We agree that the government has been failing for decades to live up to the words of treaties, modern or otherwise. We appreciate the frustration the partners have had with this. The problem we have with this legislation is that there would be no enforcement. What would the consequences be? I think the member would like to comment more.”
“Madam Speaker, our deputy leader outlined quite well our concerns with this piece of legislation. She hit on the key point that we agree with the diagnosis that Ottawa, the government itself, has not been living up to its word in treaties, whether modern or otherwise, for decades. I think we all agree on that. We do understand the frustration that the co-drafters of this legislation have with the government's living up to its word, so we agree on that. My friend from Thornhill highlighted where this legislation needs to have some change, which is the accountability part. There are department and auditor general reports that have all outlined the issues with the government not living up to its treaties, but the one part the legislation does not have is the accountability piece. Where is the accountability? That is where our issue stands.”
“Madam Speaker, since 2016, auto production in Canada has collapsed from 2.3 million vehicles to just 1.2 million vehicles. We have lost over 5,000 auto jobs, including thousands in Oshawa and Brampton. Now the Liberals want to spend up to $2.3 billion in taxpayer money subsidizing foreign-made electric vehicles, many built in the United States, while Canadian plants sit idle. Instead of supporting manufacturing elsewhere, will the Liberals adopt our Conservative plan to take the tax off Canadian-made vehicles?”
“Mr. Speaker, three years ago the finance minister promised Canadians he would stabilize food prices. Since then, lettuce is up nearly 40%, coffee 33%, beef 27%, baby formula 13% and canned vegetables almost 12%. Canada is leading the G7 in food inflation. It is now twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office and twice as high as it is in the United States. Canadians are making 2.2 million visits a month to food banks, which has doubled under the Liberal government. In my area, the local health unit has identified food insecurity as an urgent issue, as the typical family spends over $1,200 each month on healthy food alone, and many are forced to juggle between rent and buying groceries. Instead of working to reduce the cost of food, the minister is announcing yet another temporary rebate, giving some about $10 a week.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and present petition e-6777, created by Ms. Outwater, a resident in my neighbouring riding of Peterborough. All 1,767 of these signatories are concerned about the current system the Liberal government has created when it comes to how safe they feel on the streets of their community. People are concerned that there are repeat offenders continuing to get out on bail so quickly and continuing to reoffend. They would like something done about the fact that, oftentimes, when there is an intruder, the homeowner will defend themselves and then end up being charged. The petitioners would like to see some changes to that in our justice system. Therefore, I present this petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Cowichan court ruling in the British Columbia Supreme Court is causing real damage in Richmond. Banks are pulling back, buyers are walking away, investment is on hold and families and businesses are being left in limbo. On October 23, the Richmond council urgently asked the Attorney General to protect private property rights. The Liberal government did not even bother to respond. A few days ago, the Richmond council passed another motion demanding immediate federal action to mitigate the harm to affected residents. Why is the government abandoning the people whose homes and livelihoods are now at risk?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think that the member's view of what is actually happening on the ground in Canada is the exact opposite. Food bank usage is at its highest it has ever been. Millions of people are lining up for the food bank, many of whom are going for the first time. Unfortunately the government seems to be taking pride in the fact that it is creating programs that supply food. I am old enough to remember when it was the individual's responsibility to go to work, create an income, buy their own food and find a place to live in a safe neighbourhood. All of that has been eviscerated, so I guess wonder whether, if the situation continues, the government will be creating an adult food program.”
“Families want to know if the title they have held for decades still means what it was meant to mean before this ruling. We need to follow the lead of the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole with his leadership on this file. His contributions to caucus have been outstanding. He is representing his constituents very well. He recognized this crisis immediately and is responding. This request is proposing immediate parliamentary action. For these reasons, I respectfully request that you, Mr. Speaker, approve an emergency debate at the earliest opportunity. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.”
“That is why we are calling for an emergency debate that would allow Parliament to assess the national implications of this decision and consider ways to defend fee simple property rights and protect the integrity of Canada's land title, mortgage and economic systems. This ruling does not only affect British Columbians. It affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Every homeowner, every farmer and every business owner deserves to know that the title they rely on is stable and not subject to retroactive reinterpretation. This is now a national issue, not a local issue. Municipalities are uncertain about their zoning authorities. Farmers are asking whether land is still secure. Business owners are wondering if their investment can still be used for debt financing.”
“The ruling has created serious uncertainty about how fee simple ownership and aboriginal title legally coexist, and, in densely populated areas, whether the Land Title Act's indefeasibility protections remain stable; how mortgages, sales, insurance and municipal planning can be affected; and what compensation mechanisms exist if overlapping interests must be reconciled. A responsible Conservative position recognizes both the need for reconciliation and the need for stability. We respect indigenous rights and the constitutional framework that protects them. At the same time, we insist on clarity, transparency and the protection of ordinary Canadians whose life savings are tied to secure property ownership.”
“True reconciliation cannot be achieved by undermining private property rights. Aboriginal title is unique and collective. It is not simply another interest in the land. By declaring it senior to fee simple, the ruling casts doubt on the indefeasibility protections that underpin our entire land title system. Without certainty, how can homeowners trust their titles? How can banks extend mortgages? How can businesses plan for the future? This decision risks shaking the foundations of Canada's financial system, but the government chose not to notify homeowners, not to defend Crown grants and not to allow arguments that could protect fee simple holders.”