Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her speech. I hope she had a very productive summer. As said many times in this debate, we agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes over 155-plus years have fallen short on their commitments with indigenous people. What we disagree with is the prescription that the government is coming out with now. We agree with modern treaties. In fact, the Harper government signed six throughout its term from 2006 to 2015. What we have an issue with is that during committee we heard that there would be no guarantee, other than naming and shaming departments that are falling short on their commitments, that there would be fewer court cases. Also, through multiple Auditor General reports showing failures within both departments, ISC and Crown-indigenous relations, we have found years of failure but no correction. In fact, on May 4, 2006, we see, “Overall, Indigenous Services Canada did not effectively implement, monitor, or assess the New Fiscal Relationship initiatives it committed to with First Nation.” That was signed in 2016. This is a recent example. To the minister's word, let us go from intention to implementation. Why have we not started already?

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the minister's responses over the past few minutes, and we still have not heard any concrete action the government has taken to correct the mistakes shown in multiple auditors general reports. We still have outstanding issues dealing with education, drinking water, governance and programs, and the list goes on. Unfortunately, there has been no correction. This is the issue we raised about Bill C-10. There were no mechanisms to have enforcement, as I said earlier, other than naming and shaming. What actions is the government going to take to get results for indigenous people and, in this case, first nations?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her work on this file and at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. It has been a pleasure working with that individual on this piece of legislation. As she would have heard in the committee process, this piece of legislation is not expected to stop the number of court cases being brought before the government right now. It is a mechanism, basically, to name and shame government departments that are not living up to their word. We agree on this side of the House that governments of all stripes over many years have not lived up to their word with indigenous peoples, but yet we do not see in this piece of legislation a mechanism that has some kind of accountability when these failures do happen. The Auditor General has outlined report after report about failures within the department, but nothing seems to change. Would the member opposite like to see some kind of teeth in this legislation that could actually hold departments accountable?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on this side of the House agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes have failed indigenous peoples for way too many years. Even in the member's speech, he listed a number of areas that the government is working on. For all of those areas the member outlined in his speech, the Auditor General has released report after report on the continuous failures within various government departments when it comes to indigenous peoples. Given this legislation, which was commented on at committee as having no teeth to actually enforce ongoing failures, what mechanisms does the government have in place to ensure accountability?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Edmonton Northwest. At second reading, Conservatives raised a fundamental question about Bill C-10 and the government's proposal to create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The question was not whether Canada must honour its treaty obligations. Of course it must; there is no question there. It is not whether the federal government should be accountable to indigenous peoples when it fails to meet the commitments it has made. Of course it should. The question is actually much simpler: Will creating another federal office actually fix the failures of the last 100-plus years? The Conservative position throughout the consideration of this legislation has been that Canada's problem is not a shortage of reports, commissioners, bureaucracies or oversight mechanisms. It is a shortage of accountability for the people already responsible for negotiating and implementing Canada's treaties. That distinction is important. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office to audit, review and report on federal institutions, ministerial responsibility, measurable implementation requirements, parliamentary oversight and consequences when departments fail to fulfill treaty obligations. After this bill has proceeded through Parliament, that fundamental concern is still on the table. The Office of the Auditor General already examines treaty negotiations, modern treaty implementation, self-government agreements and treaty land entitlements. Its work in this field stretches back decades. The federal government has also created the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implementation process, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. The argument Conservatives are making and have been making this whole time is not that nobody is watching. It is that too few people are being held responsible. Events outside this chamber since legislation was first debated make that question even more important. We should be looking at the actual results. I know that government members have said a few times in their speeches that now is the time to have results. Well, I will give one example, from May 4, 2026. This is from an Auditor General's report, the first one on the page: Overall, Indigenous Services Canada did not effectively implement, monitor, or assess the New Fiscal Relationship initiatives it committed to with First Nations. The Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed in 2016 [which is pretty recent] to establish the initiatives to advance First Nations’ right to self-determination and support efforts to close persistent socio‑economic gaps between First Nations and other Canadians. This agreement was signed between the government and the AFN. We have had 10 years and an Auditor General's report that says nothing has been done and that they are not being held accountable. The government is not seeing changes at its own end. We have all these departments already looking into what the government is doing wrong. We have report after report. We just have to go to the Auditor General's website to see there is a whole slew of reports going back decades noting where the government and governments before it have been failing, yet nothing is changing within the departmental structure. All that is changing is that we are adding one more department after another, with more reports and more reports. We are just piling them on, but no one is being held accountable. It was even said at committee when we studied this bill that Bill C-10 is basically a name and shame bill. We see that in the Auditor General's reports when the Auditor General puts forward analyses on different governments, programs and departments. Not only that, but Indigenous Services Canada, which I mentioned in the story just a few moments ago, has over 8,000 bureaucrats right now. This government department is relatively new, but its whole mandate is to put itself out of business, and it is going in the complete wrong direction. If it is going to put itself out of business, we need to see more power given to indigenous communities, less power controlled in Ottawa and less reliance on nations coming to Ottawa to seek more money for various programs. It is not supposed to work that way. The government says it is working on it. The government says this is its vision. We heard that from the former prime minister. It somewhat continues today but it is just getting bigger. It is getting bigger and more bloated and we do not have any accountability from the government bureaucracies themselves. Why is that happening? That is the fundamental question. That is what we should be asking each other today, not whether we need another department to name and shame for one day. Maybe it circulates in the media for a day or two, longer if a Conservative is in power, and then we look at it and nothing really changes. That is the problem. The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. We are going to create another officer of Parliament to create another report. See how this goes? See what happens? It is just more circular action. Nothing actually changes. We do not actually see any measurable changes for indigenous communities. That is the whole problem. I would have loved to ask the member for Winnipeg North, who was talking about accountability, a question, if I had had the opportunity when he was talking about that. Let us use the Auditor General's report that I had just talked about a few seconds ago. Given that there has been 10 years of failure, who has been held accountable? Has anything changed within the department? Clearly, nothing has changed. They had 10 years to work on that new fiscal agreement. It was signed by the government. The government is still here. Nothing has changed. We have another report that says it has not. What is actually changing? Nothing is actually changing. This is the whole problem. The commissioner for modern treaty implementation cannot negotiate a good treaty. That is for the government to do. The commissioner cannot substitute for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. A commissioner cannot substitute for the Minister of Justice. A commissioner certainly cannot be a substitute for Parliament. The question for Parliament, because nobody is being held responsible when things go wrong, and clearly there is a lot of that, is how Parliament can better hold governments to account. We cannot do that because there is no accountability within the departmental structure. That is the whole problem. I look at the Auditor General's website. There are failures in education, in clean drinking water, in emergency response and the list goes on and on. Most of the reports that I am looking at on the Auditor General's website are just follow-ups from previous reports. There is very little action. If we are saying that we want Ottawa, which has created the problem in the first place, to fix the problem, and if it is not doing that, we need to name and shame for a day, but nothing actually improves. Again, we are going in a circle. Nothing is changing. By creating another office with another bureaucracy, with more and more reports and staff and offices, we are not actually fixing the problem. Conservatives, on this side of the House, agree with the diagnosis. There has been a massive problem. What we disagree with is the prescription the government has presented to us today, and that is Bill C-10, which would create yet another level of bureaucracy but little to no action.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of what I have to say was said before question period, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that there were a number of important indigenous organizations that did a lot of work on the treaty commission suggestion to the government and its work on Bill C-10. The Land Claims Agreement Coalition is one. There were many, many more. We understand that the treaty partners have waited years for governments to fulfill the obligations that Canada freely undertook. We understand that a signed treaty cannot become a document that governments celebrate with ceremony and then neglect afterward. Canada must keep its word. The disagreement, again, is therefore not over whether accountability is necessary. We want to see accountability. We do not believe this piece of legislation lives up to that. We do not believe that there will be a meaningful response from the government to any information that comes out of the treaty commissioner. We have seen no action on the Auditor General's reports, for report after report. We want to see action. We support the minister's word when she says they want intention rather than implementation. Let us see that. Let us give the bill some teeth. Let us have the government finish up its work.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting because we get the frustration indigenous peoples have with government in general, and in this case, the government opposite. We actually acknowledge that governments of all stripes over decades have failed to live up to their word, and that is the issue. The member opposite knows that the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. She, at this point, reports to Parliament. On May 4, 2026, the Auditor General produced yet another report showing that Indigenous Services Canada is not living up to its word to implement, monitor and assess a new fiscal relationship with indigenous peoples. This was signed in 2016 and is only 10 years old, but the Liberals have not done anything. If they are not going to live up to their word after they have signed on the dotted line, when are we going to see some accountability?

Madam Speaker, I hope the member opposite had a restful summer. It is always good to see our Bloc friends back in the House holding the government to account. I do agree that this piece of legislation does not have the teeth necessary to see changes within the way government deals with such things as modern treaties. We have pointed it out time and time again. In fact, in the committee process, it came out that this piece of legislation would produce a report that would name and shame a government department not living up to its word. The Auditor General already does that, but after that, there is still that lingering question of what actually happens. Does a government department get restructured? Does anyone lose their job? Are we seeing consequences in any meaningful form? The answer is no. What we found out at committee is that this might actually cause more court cases, and that is the opposite of what the government should be doing. That is not reconciliation.

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. For the grocery plan, the finance minister brought the CEOs to Ottawa to give them what for, but it did not lower the price of groceries. Now we have had an announcement in front of a fake house. When are we actually going to get things built?

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 that goal by 2025. That announcement was included. Now, Imperial Oil in Norman Wells announced just a few months ago that it will be ceasing operations within that village. The village itself receives about 70% of its tax base from the operations of Imperial Oil. There is a pipeline that would take energy from Norman Wells down to Alberta, line 21, that is caught in three separate environmental assessments. What is the minister doing to spark economic activity for the people of Norman Wells?

Mr. Speaker, the government speaks quite often about creating this economy and doing it in speeds never felt in generations, yet we have an existing pipeline, line 21, that runs from Norman Wells to Alberta that has already been in operation for decades. It now needs to be replaced because it is coming to the end of its useful life, yet the government has turned the Northwest Territories basically into a park. It has caught this pipeline up in three separate environmental assessments, causing Imperial Oil to shut down its operation in Norman Wells. There are 750 people in Norman Wells on the verge of unemployment because the government cannot get its act together. This is an emergency. We need our energy sector strong. Why is the government not acting quickly to get this pipeline approved?

Mr. Speaker, what we see in the House is that when the government does the job correctly, legislation can move fairly quickly through this place. However, we have growing unease in British Columbia that continues to create a massive amount of uncertainty. Now we have U.S. tribes trying to get legal standing within the British Columbia framework for energy projects that affect Canada. We also have the fact that these U.S. tribes are moving in on the consultation process and requiring their say-so to approve energy projects within Canada. The government has really done nothing to stand up to these U.S. tribes to say, no, there is no foreign interference on projects on our soil. When do we expect that to happen?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, legislation to implement the final self-government agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, for the Sahtu Dene and Métis of Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories. The name breaks down into two main parts: Tłegǫ́hłı is the place where the oil is, and Got’įnę is the government of the people. At the outset, I want to be clear about the Conservative position. We will be supporting this legislation at second reading and to send it to committee for further study. I mentioned this a few moments ago, but we do so because we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation. We respect the rights of indigenous communities to pursue self-governance, and we believe that decisions affecting northern communities are often best made by the people who live, work, raise families and build their futures there. This agreement before us is the product of decades of mostly Conservative-led negotiations. It builds upon the 1993 Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement and represents another step in the long evolution of governance in Canada's north. It recognizes that TGG's inherent right to self-government establishes a new indigenous government and creates a framework through which that government can exercise authority over matters that are of importance to its citizens. Those are goals, of course, that Conservatives can support. In fact, support for northern self-government and devolution is not new to our party. It is part of a long Conservative tradition that stretches back decades. In 1993, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and then minister of, at the time, Indian and northern affairs, Tom Siddon, whose wife Pat, I am told, was a strong advocate of good local and constituency work and often attended events on his behalf when he was working elsewhere, Canada signed the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement. This agreement provided certainty. It recognized rights. It established the foundation upon which agreements like the one we are debating today are built. Years later, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Conservatives advanced one of the most ambitious northern agendas in Canadian history. Our government at the time recognized that Canada's north was not simply a remote region to be administered from Ottawa. It is home to vibrant communities, rich cultures, extraordinary natural resources and tremendous economic potential. Prime Minister Harper at the time developed a comprehensive northern strategy built around four pillars: one, exercising Canada's sovereignty; two, promoting social and economic development; three, protecting our natural and environmental heritage; and four, improving and devolving northern governance. This strategy reflected the simple but very important principle: Northerners are in the best position to make decisions about the future of the north. That principle guided us throughout our term in government. The north has always been a defining part of our national identity, but for too long, decisions affecting the north were made thousands of kilometres away by people who would never experience the consequences of those decisions. Conservatives worked to change that. Then minister of indigenous affairs Bernard Valcourt described devolution as one of the final major steps in the political evolution of the Northwest Territories. He argued that northerners should have the same opportunity as others to make decisions about their lands, their waters, their resources. He was right then, and he is right today. The Northwest Territories Devolution Act was not simply about transferring administrative responsibilities. It was about trust. It was about recognizing that northerners understand northern realities better than federal bureaucracies ever could. It was also about economic opportunity. Conservatives understood that when communities have greater authority over their own affairs, they can respond more quickly to opportunities that attract investment, create jobs and build prosperity. The success of the Yukon following its devolution demonstrated exactly that. Greater local control led to stronger economic growth, increased investment and greater confidence in the future. This same principle applies today. Self-government and devolution are not merely constitutional exercises. They are practical tools that allow communities to chart their own course and build a stronger future for the next generation. That principle guided our support, the Conservative government at the time, for the expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, announced at the time by the late Jim Prentice, who was environment minister, and the late Chuck Strahl, the minister of Indian and northern affairs. Again, that guided our efforts to improve northern regulatory systems. It guided the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, and it guided our support for indigenous self-government agreements throughout the north. Indeed, in 2015, Bernard Valcourt, Conservative member of Parliament and then minister of Indian and northern affairs, introduced Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. During debate on the legislation, Minister Valcourt noted that the opportunities and challenges facing the north are best handled by the people who understand them best: the people who live there. That, again, remains true today. The north is not strengthened when decisions are imposed from Ottawa. The north is strengthened when local communities are empowered to shape their own future. That is why Conservatives have always supported devolution. We believe that local governments understand local needs. We believe that communities understand local priorities. We believe that people are more likely to achieve prosperity when they have greater control over the decisions that affect their lives. The TGG agreement is consistent with that principle. It recognizes that the indigenous population of Norman Wells should have a stronger voice in matters affecting their community, their culture and their future. It creates governance structures that are accountable to their citizens. It allows the community to exercise authority over matters such as citizenship, culture, language, social services and governance. While we may not always agree with every element of every self-government agreement, we recognize that moving beyond the Indian Act and empowering indigenous communities to govern their own affairs can represent meaningful progress. This agreement contains unique provisions, reflecting the realities of Normal Wells. Unlike the Déline agreement, which the minister spoke about a little while ago and which combined indigenous and municipal governance, this agreement keeps the two separate but has the possibility for a future merging. The Town of Norman Wells will continue to exist as a municipal government, while the TGG exercises authorities in areas assigned to it under the agreement. At the same time, this agreement contemplates the possibility that municipal powers could eventually be transferred if certain demographic thresholds are met. Importantly, the agreement contains provisions intended to ensure that if such a transaction occurs, the democratic rights of all, indigenous and non-indigenous, are protected. Residents of Norman Wells, indigenous and non-indigenous, would continue to have voting rights and the ability to seek elected office, and of course that matters. Reconciliation and self-government should strengthen democracy, not weaken it. The agreement must work for not only the TGG citizens, but also the broader community that calls Norman Wells home. One of the most compelling aspects of this agreement is the potential contribution to economic reconciliation. Too often, reconciliation is discussed only in terms of governance, structures and legal frameworks. Those matters are important, but reconciliation must create all kinds of opportunities. Communities need jobs. Families need incomes. Young people need reasons to stay, build careers and raise families in their home community, if they so choose. Economic reconciliation means ensuring that indigenous communities have the tools necessary to participate fully in the economy. Norman Wells, unfortunately, now faces some significant economic challenges. The region has long depended on resource development. The energy sector has provided employment, investment and revenues that support local services and community infrastructure. Unfortunately, recent announcements regarding the winding down of operations have created uncertainty about the future, and that is the operations of Imperial Oil, as I mentioned a little while ago. Now, the story of Norman Wells is inseparable from the story of northern economic development. For more than a century, oil production has been part of the community's identity. 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. As I have mentioned many times, the planned wind-down of Imperial Oil operations has created understandable concern throughout the community. Jobs are now at stake, local revenues are at stake and future opportunities are at stake. The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have been very clear that greater local control over economic decision-making can help address these challenges. They want to be active participants in shaping the future of their region instead of just observers. Conservatives can very much support that objective. We believe indigenous communities should be partners in economic development. We believe resource projects should create opportunities for all. We believe northern communities should have a meaningful role in determining how development occurs within their region. The future of Norman Wells cannot be built solely on government transfers and bureaucratic programs. It must also be built on jobs, investment, entrepreneurship and responsible development. That is what economic reconciliation looks like. It means ensuring indigenous communities possess not only the authority to govern, but also the tools necessary to create prosperity for their people. The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have argued that greater local control over those development decisions can help support economic growth, attract investment and ensure future opportunities benefit the community. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a little while ago, the Imperial Oil company has decided to shut down its operations. It has a pipeline that has existed for decades, line 21, taking energy from Norman Wells into Alberta. The pipeline has come to the end of its useful life. It is caught within three separate environmental assessments. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to build at speeds not known before, yet we are seeing a pipeline in existence for decades, creating jobs, opportunity and wealth, being shut down because of a lack of action by the government. There are 750 or so people living in the village of Norman Wells and 70% of their tax revenue is from the energy sector. Those people need those jobs, and the government is turning its back on those people. As members have probably guessed, we have always believed that responsible resource development and indigenous participation go hand in hand. We reject the false choice between economic activity and indigenous prosperity. The reality is that everybody, indigenous and non-indigenous, wants jobs. They want opportunities. They want infrastructure. They want partnerships. They want the ability to make their own decisions about development on their own terms. Economic reconciliation means saying yes to prosperity. It means creating conditions that allow communities to benefit from resources located within their traditional territories. It means ensuring that indigenous governments are partners in growth rather than spectators. That is why Conservatives have consistently supported responsible resource development in the north. 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. Of course, the Cowichan Tribes court decision created a lot of questions about fee simple property within the city of Richmond. The government, unfortunately, through a series of bad decisions, led us to the point that we have arrived at today. In 2018, a directive by the government given to their lawyers not to argue for private property rights was given. The province did the same. Only the City of Richmond argued for fee simple property. Why? We have no idea, but it is the uncertainty that was created because of those decisions. Now there is a K’ómoks Treaty that has passed the B.C. legislature that will be coming to Parliament at some point. It has neighbouring nations questioning whether consultation was done properly. Neighbouring nations want to wait. They have interests in the territory mentioned in this treaty, overlapping jurisdictions. They have what is called a living document, which means it can be opened every 10 years. That goes against the whole view of establishing a treaty. It is a finality that everyone is looking for; this legislation gives that finality. However, it is not given in the K’ómoks Treaty. Why? We have no idea. Again, as I said at the start, when things are done correctly, legislation can move very quickly through this House. However, the government continues to do things that boggle the mind, perhaps to create a level of uncertainty within British Columbia so that no development ever happens again. That seems to be what the government is doing here. On the other hand, it is saying it wants to build as fast as possible and get the economy back on track. It cannot do the two at the same time. It cannot create uncertainty in a province that needs access to the Pacific coast. That scares off investment. There has to be that certainty. There has to be the ability to attract that investment. That is the certainty people are looking for, as well as the protection for private property owners so they know their property is protected. That is the underpinning of our society. I mentioned the Déline agreement earlier. 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. Also, as I mentioned a bit in my speech, although I did not get into it as much as I wanted to, as I am running out of time, a hybrid indigenous-municipal government was created as a result. The town of Fort Franklin is now known as Déline because of the actions by the Harper government to recognize that opportunity means opportunity for all. Reconciliation means reconciliation on both sides, creating a strong economy and a level of certainty to attract investment and create jobs, opportunity and wealth. What has this government done? In 2022, it basically announced that the Northwest Territories would be a park, shutting down development, shutting down existing pipelines already in operation and shutting down the ability to create opportunities for the local population. That is deeply unfortunate, because the north has so much potential and so much going for it. These are amazing people, and we want to see them succeed. As the opposition, we will support this piece of legislation, Bill C-27. However, we would like to see the government take a more focused approach to creating economic activity and employing more people in the Northwest Territories. I only have a few moments left, so I will yield the rest of my time and take questions.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to see those future agreements when they come forward. I would like to say that the government knows where our lines are in the sand. If it is going to impact private property, that is something we cannot really accept on this side of the House. However, if the legislation is laid out clean, as it is here, I think there is greater potential for that to happen. Of course, this legislation, Bill C-27, is built on the framework of the Déline agreement, Bill C-15, which was brought under Stephen Harper. Again, when it is done properly, we can get things done quickly here.

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. A lot of these projects, pretty much all of them, run through first nations land, either treaty territory or land claims. Therefore, if we are going to build in that direction, out west, we need to ensure that consultation is done properly, ensure that first nations are active partners in projects and ensure that they are receiving benefits through jobs, impact benefit agreements; what we were proposing before the election, the resource charge; and transferring and ceding tax room on the federal level, providing the opportunity for the companies to pay the nations directly for those taxes. We need to ensure that they are getting all benefits available to them, to ensure that they share in the prosperity of all.

Mr. Speaker, that would be impossible to say, because most self-government agreements include a land claim, so those two things are not separate. They can have modern treaties that involve land in what we would be supporting. What I was going to say to supplement, and should have said during the first round, is that what makes this piece of legislation very easy to accept is that the land claim was done in 1993. The land claim was already settled. This one, however, is focused on government, but there are many treaties that have come forward that we have supported, one being that of Whitecap Dakota Nation, that actually involved land and that we supported and rushed through the House in just a few days. Therefore, there are opportunities for treaties that involve land, as long as they are not impacting private property, or they include protections for private property. That is a line we cannot cross.

Mr. Speaker, that also brings the point we were discussing earlier, and yesterday in committee, that there are U.S. tribes that are trying to seek legal standing in decisions to be made in Canada, specifically around consultation, whether about energy projects or otherwise. U.S. tribes should not be interfering in decisions made in Canada. These are our projects and our resources, and these are our benefits to achieve. We do not need interference from any outside sources, so the government should be doing everything it can to ensure that our decisions are made domestically, not internationally.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that solving land claims and self-governance are good things. They are not always mutually exclusive. They often intertwine and are the same. We are more than happy for land claims be resolved and for there to be self-government over those lands. We would be very supportive, but the government is mixing up the two. The land claim here, and I am talking about Bill C-27, not anything else at this moment, was already dealt with, so we are dealing only with the governance structure of it. Whitecap Dakota Nation had the self-governance and cleaned up the land claim as well, which was supported. They both can become one, and they both can be supported by us, except when the government creates something where it stops arguing for fee simple property, such as in the Cowichan decision, which allowed uncertainty to take hold in the city of Richmond. That is something we have an issue with. There is a Musqueam agreement that is like a menu, in which the government, knowing the uncertainty Cowichan created, did not ensure that private property was not available for negotiation. It may not include private property at the end of the day, but the fact that the government failed to take it off the table is a shortfall on its part.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this. It depends what the government is putting on the table. I think we have outlined what we will support and what we will not. If the minister, in the time available, would like to lay out a specific example, maybe I could give a better answer. She is throwing out, “Will Conservatives support this?”, but we do not know what would be in it. If the K'ómoks Treaty were done properly, I think we would have a better chance of pushing it through the House. If the Cowichan decision were argued properly, I think we would have a different outcome for the people of the city of Richmond. To answer this broad question that could include anything, when the government is not putting anything on the table, is very difficult.

Mr. Speaker, I think what I laid out in my speech is that economic activity and economic reconciliation benefit all people, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We need to build quickly, and the government is not doing that. If we build quickly, we have jobs, opportunity and wealth, but the government is throwing every barrier in the way. In addition, I mentioned Tom Siddon and his wife, Pat, and the member will be happy to know that I mentioned the work they did on the land claim in 1993 to finalize it for those nations.

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues on all sides of the aisle for speaking so positively about this important piece of legislation. I know it has been said a few times already, but I would like to quickly reflect on why we are here today. It was reiterated a few times today, in fact. The bill, as we all know, did not originate in a government department, and it did not begin in a textbook. It actually began with survivors doing the hard work, right at the beginning, and advocating to politicians for change. It began with those courageous individuals who came forward to share some deeply personal experiences of forced and coerced sterilization. Many did so at great emotional cost. They relived trauma so that others would not have to endure it. They spoke not only for themselves but for future generations. Today Parliament prepares to make a decision, and I want those survivors to know that they have all been heard. For too long, many felt ignored, dismissed or even not believed at all. For too long, they carried those experiences alone, but they persisted. They organized and advocated. They educated parliamentarians and Canadians alike, and because of their determination, we are now here today considering legislation that would make it unmistakably clear that sterilization without informed consent is a serious criminal offence. I would like to recognize and thank those whose work brought us to this exact moment. Now, I want to name people who may or may not be in the city today, and I know we cannot say who is in the gallery with us. There is a danger of actually missing some people, and if I do, I deeply apologize. I would very much like to thank Susan Anderson, Katy Bear, Kahsenniyo Kick, Silvia Mckay, Morningstar Mercredi, survivor and board member Nicole Rabbit and Kitigan Zibi elder Shirley Tolley. I would like to recognize the many other survivors, family members, advocates and community leaders who, unfortunately, may not be named here, and I do apologize if I did not, but their work and contribution is just as important. As well, I offer sincere gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director; Claudette Dumont Smith, board co-chair; and staff members Jessica Danforth and Alisa Lombard of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Through their tireless work, education and support of survivors right across the country, they ensured that this issue could no longer be ignored. Their work helped to transform individual stories into a national call for justice. I would also like to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer, who for years has been a tireless champion for survivors. Long before this issue received widespread public attention, she was listening to those affected and working to ensure their experiences would be reflected in Canadian law. I would also like to mention two of my colleagues, who actually traded their spots in this rotation to ensure that this piece of legislation moved up very quickly and without whose support it would not be being dealt with right this second, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City and my colleague, and seatmate, the member for Cariboo—Prince George. Their efforts allowed this to be escalated. I thank all sides of the House for their contributions, as well as the members of my team here who have spoken so passionately about the issue. I really appreciate the support of caucus colleagues on all sides of the aisle. As was said, and I know I am running short on time, this builds on a lot of work, years of work. Previous legislation died on the Order Paper last Parliament, but it was those survivors and the great work of Senator Boyer that kept pushing this through. I know there were times we might not have agreed on everything in this piece of legislation. Some raised concerns about implementation, and others discussed the interaction between criminal law and medical practice. However, those are good conversations to have. They are important and worthwhile. We worked through them and came to an agreement on all sides of the aisle that we can be comfortable with here as federal lawmakers. Today we have an opportunity to respond. As we wrap up the Parliament for this sitting before the summer break, this is one of these moments here. The outcome of this vote will be very important, but more important is the message it will send. A strong vote in favour of Bill S-228 would send the message to survivors that Parliament believes them. It would send the message that Parliament recognizes the harm that was done and that Parliament stands firmly on the side of informed consent. No one should lose their reproductive future because of coercion, pressure, misinformation or abuse of authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness to pay tribute to a dear friend, a dedicated public servant and a remarkable leader, Murray Fearrey, who passed away on May 28. Murray spent his entire life in Haliburton, where he was born and raised and devoted time to his entire community, which he loved. His commitment to public service spanned nearly six decades, beginning in 1971. As reeve and mayor of Dysart, plus 12 years as county warden, he served with unwavering dedication, integrity and compassion, always putting the needs of residents first. Murray's impact can be found from Head Lake Park to the arena, the curling club, the library, the hospital, the long-term care centre and many more. He helped shape the institutions for generations that will benefit because of his work. Beyond his many accomplishments, of course, Murray was a trusted friend, a source of wise counsel and a true gentleman whose steady leadership earned the respect of all who knew him. I extend my deepest condolences to his partner Donna, his children, his friends and colleagues. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, immediately following question period, the House will vote on our Conservative motion to protect homeowners from a failed Liberal approach that is putting British Columbians' homes and futures at risk. Our motion would prioritize private property rights in the Cowichan case, require explicit private property rights protections in future agreements with first nations and force the government to establish a plan to protect affected Canadians. Will the government support our common-sense motion, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the only people putting reconciliation at risk are the Liberal government members and that member from British Columbia, who should know better. The amount of uncertainty created in British Columbia, not just in the city of Richmond, is the result of the Liberal government's failing to stand up for private property rights. It appealed at the last minute. It put so much uncertainty in the air. The only organization appealing for private property rights is the City of Richmond. The government has failed. It needs to do better. Will it support our Conservative motion to fix the problem the government created?

moved: 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This is not merely a regional concern. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, it is a national issue. 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. 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 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. 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? 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. 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.

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.

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 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. 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, 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.

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? Was it where they signed an agreement with Musqueam that did not take fee simple property? Which part is misinformation?

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. 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, 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.

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. 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, 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?

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, 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. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to provide greater certainty and clarity on how private property rights will be protected to ensure future agreements give homeowners certainty and to restore confidence in Canada's land title system.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything the member for Edmonton Northwest has done on the indigenous northern affairs committee. I have learned a lot from him, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this very important file. The member for Winnipeg North, just a few moments ago, read a statement; in normal circumstances, this would be a good thing. However, everything repeated in that script was the exact opposite of what the Liberals were doing. They decided in 2018, in a conscious decision, not to argue fee simple property rights in court. This means that if a party does not do it in the lower court, they cannot do it on appeal, and if it gets to the Supreme Court, they cannot do it there either. How do the Liberals expect to use this argument when they are not allowed to?

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think the hon. member was paying attention to what we were saying on this side of the House. At no time has anyone on this side even implied that the Cowichan Tribes would be forcing people off their land. At no time did anyone on this side say that. She continues to repeat that, unfortunately. We have said that it has created massive uncertainty because the government did not do its job. Do not take my word for it. According to David Eby, the NDP Premier of British Columbia, in a quote from the Canadian Bar Association, “Mr. Eby has repeatedly raised the alarm about the Cowichan decision, saying it threatens private property rights.” He goes on to say that the court decision was very unhelpful. The member says that there are more important things to talk about. How about a $100-million project, a luxury hotel, that was cancelled? How about widespread uncertainty, according to CBC News and the Vancouver Sun, affecting Richmond and elsewhere? This is very important and we need certainty.

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Let us act decisively, let us act responsibly and let us ensure that this injustice has no place in Canada now or ever again.

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.

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. 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, 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, 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, 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.