Debates of Feb. 26th, 2026

Criminal Code

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his tireless effort on this incredibly important topic. He and I have shared a number of conversations about not just the importance of the legislation but the importance of talking about it here in the House of Commons and bringing attention to this issue, because this is something that a lot of people think lives in a far distant past.

I do not believe he had an opportunity to finish all of his speech. I wondered if he could perhaps share with the chamber some of the hard work he performed that he did not get to share with us earlier.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

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. 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Industry; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Housing; the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, Taxation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our government in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This important piece of legislation addresses coerced sterilization. The bill would address this abhorrent practice by clarifying how the existing law of assault applies when sterilization procedures are carried out without valid consent.

Coerced sterilization constitutes a profound breach of bodily integrity with enduring effects on survivors, their families and their communities. Evidence has shown that these harms have been experienced in a disproportionate way by indigenous women and girls, and two-spirit and gender-diverse people in Canada, as well as by racialized and disabled women, which underscores the need for clear legal protections that affirm the centrality of consent in all medical decision-making.

Bill S-228 would respond to that need by clarifying for greater certainty that a sterilization procedure constitutes a wounding or a maiming for the purposes of the offence of aggravated assault in section 268 of the Criminal Code. Aggravated assault is the most serious assault offence in Canadian criminal law. It applies where an assault “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life” of the victim, and it carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.

Because all surgeries, including sterilization procedures, necessarily involve wounding or maiming of the body, they already fall within the scope of aggravated assault when performed without legally effective consent. The bill would make explicit what is already implicit in the law. This clarification is critically important because it focuses the legal analysis where it properly belongs. The relevant legal question is whether a particular sterilization procedure amounted to a non-consensual application of force, that is, whether an assault occurred.

Both the Criminal Code and long-standing jurisprudence provide an established framework for answering that question. Assault was originally a common-law offence, but it is now codified in subsection 265(1) of the Criminal Code. That provision establishes that an assault occurs where a person applies force to the body of another person, directly or indirectly, without a person's consent, or while being reckless as to whether the person consents. The concept of applying force is broad. It simply means bringing something into contact with another person's body. With that definition, any medical procedure performed on a person without their consent plainly constitutes an assault because it involves intentional application of force to the body.

This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1988 Morgentaler decision. The court clarified that the law of assault applies to any medical procedure carried out without the patient's legally effective consent, and because surgeries necessarily involve wounding or maiming the patient, they constitute aggravated assault if they are performed without legally effective consent. Bill S-228 therefore underscores the fact that sterilization procedures fall squarely within the established framework.

This brings us to the core concept that governs the lawfulness of any medical procedure: legally effective consent. Under Canadian criminal law, the application of force does not constitute an assault where legally effective consent is present. However, consent in law has a precise meaning. Legally effective consent must meet three fundamental criteria: It must freely be given, it must go to the nature of the act and it must be given by a person with the ability to understand what is being done.

These requirements have been developed through the common law, some of which are reflected in subsection 265(3) of the Criminal Code. That provision sets out circumstances in which the law will not recognize any consent given.

Specifically, the provision states that consent is not obtained in law “where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of” violence, threats of violence, “fraud” or “the exercise of authority”. The requirement that consent be freely given means there must be no fraud or duress. If a patient agrees to a sterilization procedure because they have been misled about its purpose, pressured by authority figures or made to believe that they have no real choice, the law will not recognize that agreement as legally effective consent.

Consent also must go to the nature of the act, and the requirement implies a foundation of knowledge. Courts have described this as knowledge of the purpose of the operation, knowledge of the events that will occur and an understanding of the character of what is about to take place. In the context of sterilization, this means that the patient must be informed that the procedure will permanently prevent reproduction. Without that information, there is no legally effective consent.

Finally, consent must be given by a person who has the ability to understand. Any consent provided by a patient who is unable to appreciate the nature of the consequences of the act is not valid in law. This issue may arise where the patient is a child or where the patient has a cognitive impairment that affects their capacity to comprehend the procedure and its implication.

These principles of voluntariness, knowledge and capacity are consistent with the consent standards applied in provincial and territorial health law across Canada, such that compliance with these standards protects health care providers from criminal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified the contours of consent for assault law purposes in its 1991 Jobidon decision. The court explained that the list of violating factors set out in subsection 265(3) is not exhaustive. The common law may continue to recognize additional circumstances in which consent will not be applied for public policy reasons. Depending on that fact, at the same time, the court affirmed that the assault law will recognize consent for application of force that has social value, such as appropriate in consensual, surgical interventions.

This balance is essential. The criminal law does not criminalize medical care; it is freely chosen and properly consented to. Indeed, it expressly recognizes the social and therapeutic value of appropriate surgical procedures, including sterilization procedures performed with valid consent. Bill S-228 preserves that distinction. It does not restrict access to voluntary sterilization procedures. Rather, it clarifies that, when sterilization is performed without legally effective consent, that conduct constitutes our most serious form of assault.

The bill also must be understood in the broadest context, which is that the disproportionate impact of coercion on indigenous women and diverse people has been documented and acknowledged. Clarifying the criminal law is therefore not only a matter of legal precision, but also part of Canada's broader efforts toward reconciliation. In respect to that, Bill S-228 is consistent with Canada's commitments under UNDRIP, which call for concrete measures to eliminate forced and coerced sterilization and to strengthen protections for productive autonomy and bodily integrity. By enforcing the central concept of consent in criminal law, this bill contributes to the objective in a concrete, legally meaningful way.

Ultimately, Bill S-228 would ensure that our criminal law speaks clearly where clarity is required and reinforces that legally effective consent is the dividing line between lawful medical care and criminal violence. Where such consent is present, the law recognizes the procedure as legitimate. Where it is absent, the full protections of the Criminal Code will apply.

Bill S-228 affirms the central role of consent in Canadian criminal law, clarifies the application of aggravated assault provisions, acknowledges the disproportionate harms experienced by indigenous women and girls, and supports Canada's commitment under the UNDRIP action plan. For these reasons, I urge all hon. members to support its swift passage.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I freely admit that until very recently I was convinced that forced sterilization was already illegal, as it seems to me to be a matter of basic common sense. No one should be subjected to such an inhumane and degrading practice.

Despite a legal framework that is already strict in Quebec and Canada and despite multiple safeguards that protect patient consent, this requirement can still be compromised in certain clinical contexts, particularly when indigenous or minority women are in vulnerable situations. By explicitly banning forced or coerced sterilization in the Criminal Code, victims would have a clear recourse for launching investigations or taking legal action. Depending on the circumstances, these actions may constitute aggravated assault. That is why we support Bill S‑228. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of it. This ban would also act as a deterrent for health care professionals. It would also encourage hospitals, medical associations and professional bodies to adopt policies to ensure that medical practices are fully in line with the law.

The bill specifies that “a sterilization procedure is an act that wounds or maims” a person for the purposes of subsection 268(1) of the Criminal Code, that is, aggravated assault. It also defines what constitutes sterilization, which is helpful. The bill states:

sterilization procedure means the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.

Historical data shows that the forced or coerced sterilization of indigenous women in Canada was part of a eugenic and colonial attitude that persisted until the 1970s. It is estimated that between 1966 and 1976, more than 1,200 sterilizations were performed, including approximately 1,150 on indigenous women and 50 on men or people whose gender was not documented, with more than 70 additional procedures performed on women in Nunavut. In Alberta, under the Sexual Sterilization Act, 74% of indigenous people referred to the Alberta Eugenics Board were actually sterilized, compared to 60% of all people referred, illustrating a clear overrepresentation of indigenous people in these programs.

In her work on these practices, researcher Karen Stote documented 580 sterilizations performed in federal Indian hospitals between 1970 and 1975 alone, which suggests that the already high numbers available are just a minimum, given the destroyed archives, incomplete records and the lack of systematic data by community or identity. Little data seems to be publicly available on sterilizations that may have taken place before the 1960s. However, make no mistake: These numbers are alarming. In my community, as a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation, I have not heard of any such instances. I am not aware of any. Some may have occurred, but I have not heard anything about it. However, all first nations stand in solidarity with each other.

In the more recent past, the magnitude of the issue is reflected more in class actions and investigations than in official administrative statistics. A class action filed in Saskatchewan in 2017 includes more than 100 indigenous women from various regions alleging coerced sterilization or sterilization without free and informed consent, including tubal ligations performed between 2008 and 2012. At least 55 women had already contacted lawyers by the late 2010s.

Across the country, organizations such as the Native Women's Association of Canada and various reports mention at least five ongoing or announced class actions involving institutions and doctors in several provinces. In Quebec, a university study cited in the media and by indigenous groups identified at least 22 instances of forced or coerced sterilization of indigenous women between 1980 and 2019.

Approximately 30 Atikamekw women are currently participating in a class action against the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Lanaudière and three doctors for sterilizations performed without consent from 1980 to the present.

Forced or coerced sterilization has no place in a free and democratic society. It must come to an end once and for all. The bill is an important step toward explicitly prohibiting forced or coerced sterilization. Its passage will provide vulnerable women with greater legal protection and affirm the primacy of free and informed consent in the face of forced sterilization.

During the last parliamentary session, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs expressed concern that tensions might arise between obtaining consent for sterilization and intervention during medical emergencies or other situations requiring sterilization. A number of amendments were made to Bill S-250, which became Bill S-228, the one before us today. It now offers clearer and more precise language that could have a significant impact on the importance of free, informed and prior consent, as well as on the importance of informing patients of the medical risks associated with procedures, including the possibility of sterilization when a doctor must act to protect the patient's health or life from a medical standpoint.

Furthermore, some inclusion groups have criticized the bill for the limited scope of the definition of “sterilization procedure”. They would like to include transgender, non-binary and intersex individuals, as well as men. However, it should be noted that the current definition remains inclusive, as it encompasses “any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction”.

In any case, adopting legislative provisions is not enough. For them to have a real impact, they need to be accompanied by specific regulations, rigorous enforcement mechanisms and strategies that respect the cultural realities and autonomy of indigenous nations. Without this, the Canadian government risks repeating its usual ineffective centralizing practices. The full and complete participation of indigenous organizations is an essential condition for the legitimacy and effectiveness of any reform. Only through this collaboration can we guarantee the real protection of the rights of indigenous women and all those who may be exposed to these unacceptable practices.

In addition, any legislative or regulatory action in this area must fully respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces in health care. Ottawa cannot impose one-size-fits-all measures that circumvent Quebec's autonomy. Otherwise, it would repeat the historical mistakes of centralization. Protecting women's rights and overseeing medical practices both fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction. Any reform must fully involve Quebec, its institutions and indigenous organizations in its design and implementation.

One specific example of this is the Collège des médecins du Québec. Following the report of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, the college put in place an action plan and added a preamble to its code of ethics recognizing the realities of first peoples, respect for all identities and the fight against systemic inequalities. What is more, the ALDO‑Québec training program was updated with a new social responsibility unit on equity, diversity, inclusion and global health.

That is what we need to keep an eye on and put in place. However, for now, we fully support this bill.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code on sterilization procedures. Bill S-228, formerly Bill S-250, would criminalize the act of forcing or coercing a person to become sterilized without proper consent. It would amend the Criminal Code of Canada by adding section 268.1, which would clarify what a sterilization procedure is and add clarity that a sterilization procedure is an act that would fall under subsection 268(1).

I want to thank Senator Yvonne Boyer for her leadership in bringing forward this bill. This is not an easy topic to talk about, but it would bring an important solution, so that forced or coerced sterilization would never happen again.

Forced or coerced sterilization is a form of eugenics, and Canada has a troubling and well-documented history when it comes to its practice. In 1928, Alberta enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act, which established a eugenics board empowered to authorize the sterilization of patients in mental hospitals who were being considered for discharge. If the board determined that an individual might pass on a perceived disability to their children, it could approve the procedure.

At first, the act required consent, either from the patient or from the parent, guardian or spouse. However, in 1937, the legislation was amended to remove the requirement for informed consent for those labelled “mentally defective”. During the 44 years in which this legislation was in effect, the eugenics board approved 4,725 cases for sterilization, of which 2,834 were carried out.

One of the survivors was Leilani Muir. In 1955, Ms. Muir was admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Red Deer. She was told she was undergoing a routine appendectomy when doctors decided to sterilize her without her knowledge, much less her consent. It was only years later that she found out, while trying to conceive, that her sterilization had occurred. In 1996, Ms. Muir became the first person to successfully sue the Alberta government for wrongful sterilization. Ms. Muir's case opened the door for similar class action lawsuits, and by 1999 the Province of Alberta had paid $142 million in settlement costs to over 700 victims.

The Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972 by Premier Peter Lougheed's Progressive Conservative government, and in 1999, former Premier Ralph Klein made an historic formal apology for the forced sterilization of more than 2,800 people. British Columbia enacted a similar law that was in place between 1933 and 1973, yet it was narrower in scope than Alberta's legislation and therefore impacted a lot fewer people.

Both Saskatchewan and Ontario debated bringing forward this type of legislation, but ultimately the legislation did not pass. As a result, many assume that forced sterilization belongs to some troublesome but distant past. This assumption, however, is completely inaccurate. Reports of forced or coerced sterilization have surfaced as recently as last year, 2025. For those affected, this is not history. It is lived experience.

To date, it is estimated that somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 indigenous women and men have experienced forced or coerced sterilization in Canada. Evidence also shows that other marginalized groups, including women living in poverty, women with disabilities, African Canadian women, racialized and ethnic minority women and women living with HIV, have been particularly vulnerable to coercive sterilization practices within Canadian health care settings, where their autonomy and informed consent were compromised or, worse yet, completely disregarded.

This week, I had the opportunity to attend an information session, where survivors of forced and coerced sterilization bravely shared their stories. One survivor, Chastity, really touched my heart. She recounted her experience to me, saying that during the birth of her daughter, she had been scheduled for a Caesarean section. Upon her arrival at the hospital, doctors began discussing complications from her previous pregnancy and then shifted to the topic of tubal ligation. She made it clear that the doctors were speaking among themselves but not including her in the conversation, as though the decision had already been made.

She explicitly told the doctors that she did not want to have a tubal ligation, and instead she asked about having a five-year contraceptive implant. She was handed documents to sign, and she believed she was consenting to the implant. Throughout this time, she was drifting in and out of consciousness and experiencing disorientation. She was not informed of her options, nor was she in a condition to provide meaningful consent. Despite this, during her C-section, Chastity remembers the smell of burning flesh. To this day, she does not know exactly which procedure was performed on her.

The trauma of this experience has had lasting impacts and effects, yet tragically, Chastity's story is just one of thousands. She was 22 years old at the time. She is now in her early forties. She is only a couple of years older than me. This clearly is not a problem of the past, and we must do something today to stop it once and for all.

Forced or coerced sterilization is a profound violation of human rights. It strips individuals of bodily autonomy, personal freedom and fundamental dignity. As Chastity stated, “This isn't theoretical. It happened to real people, Indigenous women, racialized women, and vulnerable women. Survivors were harmed without consent. A law is required because human rights should never rely on goodwill.”

In my view, forced and coerced sterilization constitutes aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. While existing provisions of the Criminal Code may, in certain circumstances, allow for this to be prosecuted, it really leaves a gap and a hole. It is clear: The Senate committee, expert witnesses repeatedly testified that these provisions rarely actually resulted in meaningful accountability.

The absence of explicit language creates uncertainty for law enforcement, prosecutors, health care administrators and survivors alike. When the law lacks clarity, investigations falter, prosecutions stall and the people harmed are reluctant to come forward. This is just one more example of our medical system that mistreats and misunderstands women, especially women in these vulnerable times.

The legislative gap leaves grave violations insufficiently addressed, and the resolution is Bill S-228. I am so proud to be able to second the bill. The legislation, at its core, is about justice for every person who has endured the profound violation of forced or coerced sterilization. Indigenous women have been disproportionately targeted, reflecting a painful and well-documented history of discrimination and systemic racism, but we also have to recognize that this abuse has not been confined to one community. This abuse has afflicted women, gender-diverse people, and men throughout our entire country. It has harmed individuals from coast to coast to coast. This is something that truly just has to end today.

Let me reiterate: Forced sterilization is not just something in the past. It is happening now, today, to somebody's daughter or son, perhaps to someone we might very well know. Passing the bill would not undo the suffering already inflicted, but it would tell the survivors that we hear them, we see them and we will make sure that never again will this happen in this great country of ours. I would urge every member to support the bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to represent Nunavut in supporting Bill S-228.

First, I would like to thank the very strong people, who may or may not be in this room, who are sharing their strength with us today: Jackie, Sylvia, Heather, Germaine, Chasity, Nicole, Lois, Nilak, Susan, Harmony, staff and volunteers. I also thank the MP for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, and I thank Senator Boyer for her decades of commitment to this work.

Survivors of the horrific procedure of forced or coerced sterilization against first nations, Inuit and Métis have endured so much, and this is another example of a genocidal policy that has tested our strength.

I thank Senator Boyer for her decades of commitment to this work. I was her student in law school when I first heard about just how deep this issue was across Canada. I thank the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice for their years of work.

Finally, I thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, who studied this important issue and tabled a report entitled “The Scars That We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada—Part II” in July 2022.

Far too many Canadians are still ignorant as to how Canada treated indigenous peoples. Senator Boyer has worked since around 2017 bringing this to light. At least 12,000 indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people were forcibly or coercively sterilized between 1971 and 2018. This practice is reported as far back as the 1920s. This bill is important because if passed, it would criminalize sterilization procedures in the Criminal Code.

Today, I met Dr. Margot Burnell, president of the Canadian Medical Association. The CMA supports Bill S-228, which would make it clear that performing medical acts without free, prior and informed consent constitutes aggravated assault. The bill would define a sterilization procedure as any intervention that permanently prevents reproduction, regardless of whether it is technically reversible. The offence would be serious and could carry a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

Unfortunately, sterilization of indigenous women is not a practice of the distant past, as others have said in this room. There are ongoing class action lawsuits representing hundreds of indigenous women who were sterilized without their consent, and reports of forced and coerced hysterectomies and sterilizations performed on Black women, people with disabilities and intersex people.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights reported:

In Igloolik, 26% of women between the ages of 30 and 50 were sterilized. In Naujaat, formerly known as Repulse Bay, almost 50% of women in the 30 to 50 age group were sterilized. In Gjoa Haven, 31% of women had been sterilized. More than 25% of women in Chesterfield Inlet and Kugaaruk had been sterilized. Those are the only ones that were well documented, but we know that there were a lot more.

I share as well the story of Louise Delisle from the report, “The Scars That We Carry”. Louise shared:

I was very young when I had my daughter. I was 15 years old. My parents were not parents whom I could come to and tell them that I was pregnant, so this was a traumatic time for me in my life, and I told no one. I had to leave school because I began to show, and actually my principal was the one who informed my mother that I was with child.

Because I was so young, I had no idea what this all meant and how to handle this. Of course my daughter was taken away because I was so young, and I was the eldest of seven children living in a very poor home.

I remember her birth. I remember the pain during her birth. I also remember a Black woman being in the room with me as a nursing assistant. I remember, through all the pain, that she got into an argument with the doctor who was delivering my daughter. I remember her voice to this day and the sternness in her voice when she said, “You can’t do that. You need permission to do that.” The doctor said, “Too late. I don’t want to see this girl back here again having kid after kid and going through this and maybe worse. We won’t be in this position again,” he said. I had no idea what he was talking about. I was in labour and I was 15 years old, but what I found out was he had done something that would prevent me from having any more children. This was never discussed with me or my mother, who was my guardian while I was in hospital. It was never discussed.

My mother was not allowed in the room with me when I was giving birth, which was also something traumatic. The hardest thing for me was to come home without my daughter. Because I was 15 years old, like I said, I had to give her away. I couldn’t provide for her.

Whatever the doctor did to me, I was not able to have children again in my life... So when I became 29 I married, and my husband and I wanted to have children. I was not aware what had happened until I was seeing a doctor in a fertility clinic to find out why I wasn’t getting pregnant.... That’s when I was told I had had a partial hysterectomy.

That is the story of Louise Delisle.

We have a responsibility to prevent obstetric violence. We have to make sure we see the link between racism and the forced practice of coerced sterilization in Canada that exists. Much work has been done by Senator Boyer that must be honoured. We must continue to stand with survivors. To all Inuit, first nations and Métis, I say to speak up. Their voices matter. They can help make a difference. They can help make sure that we have a better future.

Having said this, Uqaqtittiji, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There is a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent, as discussed with the official opposition, to allow the bill to pass unanimously but to allow it to go to committee. This way, individuals that might want to present at committee are afforded that opportunity.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2025, the Government of Quebec ordered the removal of 1,200 so-called zero-emission buses from Quebec roads. These were school buses, and it was because one had caught fire. The company involved was a local champion called Lion Electric. It was the poster child, if we will, of a government program that the Government of Quebec said it needed a local company for to provide the electric buses to transition its bus fleet from diesel to electric. It was a failed experiment, a rushed transition, but it was something that cost the Government of Quebec over $230 million.

This past spring, the Government of Quebec undid that requirement because of the failed experiment. Nevertheless, if we talk to the people who were actually involved in arranging these vehicles, people like Andrew Jones, they say that the problem with these buses was that an electric bus costs triple what it would be for a diesel equivalent for insurance, costs a whole bunch more in maintenance and is not worth it at the end of the day.

More costs were going to be visited upon society, and not just for the purchase price, which went from $175,000 per vehicle to $230,000 per vehicle just because they cost so much more than the vehicles they were replacing. The government could subsidize the initial part of it, but it did not subsidize anything further. The Government of Quebec lost a significant amount of money, but being the local champion is, of course, the only reason Lion Electric received the contract. The buses had to be bought in Quebec, so 1,200 of those were bought.

After going through more than half a billion dollars of investor funds, Lion Electric entered into CCAA protection last year. This was enough of a failed vehicle electrification experiment that the Government of Quebec scrapped its whole experiment.

This is an indication that it was bad policy, but here is where the Government of Canada was involved in that whole scam. The problem with it is that it is actually a financial crime called a pump and dump. Some promoters in the financial industry got a hold of this flavour of the day and that the Government of Canada was in on the green technology. They got a hold of a marginal production company in Quebec. In the process of raising half a billion dollars on public markets that benefited a whole bunch of insiders, including people who are well-connected with the Liberal government, they cashed in their own shares.

The president of Lion, Marc Bédard, took out $33 million and put it in his pocket before it went bankrupt. This is, like I say, a pump and dump financial arrangement. Investors became very poor in the process and all the management became very rich.

The problem here is with the Government of Canada, because it assisted in this by giving $50 million to this fraud from the strategic innovation fund. It gave $480 million to arrange these vehicles through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The third leg of that stool is that the Government of Canada gave an unwritten and unquantified guarantee to the lenders to Lion through Export Development.

I have asked, through an Order Paper question, to find out how much Export Development has underwritten lenders like BMO Capital Markets, which provided part of the pump up on this in its reports to get this over the line. This has cost Canadians an enormous amount of money. We need to find out how much it is.

Will the government please indicate how much it has lost on this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre regarding contributions to Lion Electric and, more specifically, how much these contributions have cost taxpayers.

In March 2021, the Government of Canada announced supports to Lion Electric, which included a $49.95-million contribution through the strategic innovation fund for Lion's automated battery-pack assembly plant project. At the time, the SIF program administered the net-zero accelerator initiative, which supported investments to establish Canada as a global clean technology leader, enabling decarbonization and industrial transformation while capitalizing on new growth opportunities.

As is done for all SIF projects, rigorous due diligence was conducted to ensure that Lion Electric's project aligned with federal objectives before a contribution was committed. Since that time, the company has faced a number of financial challenges, which have resulted in the company's seeking credit protection in late 2024 and ultimately being sold to a group of Quebec-based investors in 2025. SIF has committed to a partially repayable contribution for Lion, of which $31 million has been disbursed according to the public accounts of Canada. The Government of Canada has been monitoring the situation closely and has worked with Justice Canada and the court-appointed trustee to evaluate the next steps.

Electric vehicle and battery supply chains are complex and require considerable investment to bring as much of this value chain as possible to Canada. Responsible risk-taking is an inherent part of supporting innovation in a competitive global economy.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague on the other side say “responsible risk-taking”. Well, this was not responsible at all. It pushed a whole bunch of money into their friends' pockets along the way.

However, I am going to bring up one thing in particular. Export Development Canada will guarantee BMO loans to companies working to lower emissions. The Bank of Montreal, BMO Capital Markets, threw a whole bunch of money behind these companies, with zero risk. This is what is known as privatizing profits and publicizing, or making public, all the losses that these companies have, so profits are going to their friends and profits are going to the insiders, and the people bearing the cost at the end of the day are, of course, Canadian taxpayers.

I am asking the government again. EDC, Export Development Canada, funded all of this mess. It is a vast fraud, and I would like the government to explain how much it has lost through Export Development Canada in this electrification fiasco.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the project is currently being managed by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, and its grants and contributions centre of expertise, the team responsible for managing all contribution agreements that are in breach or in default. The department has worked closely with a court-appointed trustee to validate the outstanding debt and to ensure continuous oversight of this situation.

As mentioned, strategic and well-informed risk-taking plays an important role in securing investments. Calculated risk is a fundamental driver of innovation. I can speak only for ISED, but it will continue to evaluate risks and benefits to Canadians when making strategic investment decisions. Electric vehicle and battery supply chains are complex and require considerable investment to bring as much of this value chain as possible to Canada.

Housing

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal promises, housing prices have doubled, down payments have doubled, and now CMHC is projecting that housing starts will decline through 2026, 2027 and 2028. CMHC says we need nearly 500,000 homes per year to end the housing crisis. Instead we are headed toward fewer than half that. The government says 800,000 homes may be permitted over a decade. That is not a housing plan. That is a housing backslide.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the new Build Canada Homes program will build just 5,000 homes per year. That is just 1% of what the Liberals promised Canadians. Private homebuilding itself is slowing as well. New home sales are down 45% in our major cities, the lowest level in 45 years. They are down 56% in Vancouver. Permit applications are down 26% compared to last spring. Why is that?

Government-imposed costs now account for 30% to 50% of the price of a new home. Development charges have exploded. When it costs more to get permission to build than it does to build, we do not have a market failure; we have a government failure. The Liberals will stand up and list the billions of dollars they have spent. The Liberal government has indeed created the most expensive housing program in history, but if those billions of dollars in announcements actually built homes, Canada would not be in a housing crisis.

The housing accelerator fund was supposed to remove gatekeepers. Instead, cities are raising development fees after receiving federal money, while communities like mine have submitted numerous applications for the accelerator fund and have had all their proposals rejected.

The Liberal government's housing failures are increasingly evident. Many Liberals stood on a promise in 2021 to end chronic homelessness by 2030. Can we find a single Liberal who thinks that they will keep that promise? It will not happen, when the PBO is reporting that the number of chronic homeless people has increased 38% and unsheltered homelessness increased by 300% between 2018 and 2024.

Residents in communities in my region do not need Ottawa to tell them this, though. Penticton and the regional district are buckling under the strain of homeless encampments and people living in their vehicles on forestry roads. I recently spoke with a senior in Castlegar, living across the street from a growing encampment that did not exist just a couple of years ago. Not surprisingly, she feels increasingly unsafe in her own neighbourhood amid rising crime and reports of fires.

Local services are overwhelmed, and the problem of homelessness is only increasing. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to stop making promises they cannot keep and start building homes. We asked them to cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million to save families up to $65,000 and make projects viable again, to tie federal infrastructure dollars to municipal results and reward communities that are building more, and to end capital gains tax on reinvestment in housing to unlock private capital.

The Liberals say their plan is working, so why are housing starts falling, sales collapsing, and young Canadians giving up on home ownership? Why are people living in tents?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing system is facing complex problems that require targeted solutions. Far too many Canadians, especially younger generations, are struggling to find homes they can afford. Housing costs continue to rise, while supply is not keeping pace with growing demand. In response, the Government of Canada is taking immediate action.

Budget 2025 is making generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing and $115 billion over five years for infrastructure. These strategic investments will build major infrastructure and homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead. That is also why the Government of Canada has launched Build Canada Homes.

Build Canada Homes is Canada's new federal agency with the mandate to scale up the supply of affordable housing across Canada. By leveraging public lands, deploying flexible financial tools and acting as a catalyst for modern methods of construction, Build Canada Homes is driving a more productive and innovative homebuilding sector.

On February 5, Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, was introduced in Parliament. This legislation, if passed, will establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building affordable homes in communities across the country. Build Canada Homes is accelerating delivery of the housing Canadians need, faster, smarter and more affordable.

This new agency is working in partnership with non-profits, indigenous organizations, private developers and all orders of government. Build Canada Homes will partner with builders and housing providers that are focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers and organizations that support a variety of housing options for Canadians. It will also work with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous governments to help fight homelessness by building supportive and transitional housing. Through Build Canada Homes investments, federal governments and provincial and territorial governments are partnering to deliver affordable homes to Canadians.

The Government of Canada has also made significant investments in affordable housing through programs like the affordable housing fund. As of September 2025, over 54,000 new units have been committed through the affordable housing fund. The Government of Canada has also provided an additional $1.5 billion in loans to the affordable housing fund's new construction stream. This will lead to thousands of affordable housing units being built and brings the total federal investment in the fund to approximately $16 billion. Additionally, to help new homebuyers enter the market, we are delivering savings of up to $50,000 for first-time homebuyers by cutting the GST on new homes at or under $1 million and lowering the GST on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

The federal government, through a wide range of measures, is restoring affordability, expanding housing options and ensuring that every Canadian has a place to call home.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to build at speeds not seen since the Second World War, when returning veterans were in desperate need of housing to start young families. Back then, we provided it in mere months. The Liberals today are proud of the billions they are spending, but the fact is, more young Canadians than ever are delaying, if not abandoning, important life goals like home ownership and starting a family. Too many end up homeless as a result.

An average home in Canada costs roughly $700,000. Down payments have doubled. Housing starts are falling. Builders are not building. Tent communities are a common sight. After 10 years and billions of dollars, where are the homes?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 includes generational investments in housing and infrastructure that will accelerate housing construction and grow Canada's economy. We are taking the next step forward with the introduction of Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. Now is the time to build upon the progress being made by Build Canada Homes and get homes built for Canadians across the country.

Build Canada Homes will partner across the housing ecosystem to drive the development of affordable housing. It will support a mix of income needs and catalyze a more productive housing sector. This is part of our national effort to increase housing construction, restore affordability and reduce homelessness. The government is focused on building more affordable housing while creating jobs and growing our economy at the same time.

Taxation

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak about the issue of affordability.

Women in Canada are only half of the population, but they are really struggling. We are talking single mothers. We are talking single seniors. These are some of the poorest people in our country. They cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves. It is the disastrous policies of the Liberal government over the last 10 years that have led us here.

If we look at food, we know that food inflation is the highest in the G7. It is double what it is in the U.S.A. There are specific items. Lettuce is up 40%. Coffee is up 33%. Beef is up 27%, and baby formula is up 50%. All of these things are making it difficult for people to survive in this country, especially women.

The reason for the food inflation is clear. It is the industrial carbon tax. It is the fuel standard tax. It is the fertilizer tariffs, the fertilizer regulations and the new packaging requirements that are driving costs up. We then see that when it comes to heating our homes or driving our cars to take our kids to soccer, the fuel standard has driven things up 7¢ a litre. That is just piling on to an already unaffordable life.

Housing is difficult as well. The disastrous immigration policies of the government have let millions of people come in without keeping up with the housing supply. I heard the member before me talk about how we have to build 500,000 homes a year, every year, for a number of years, to get out of this housing crisis. What that has done is double the price of housing. It has doubled the price of rent. People who are working hard cannot afford to live.

It so disproportionately affects those who can least afford it, like single mothers and single seniors. The government has a responsibility. I know the status of women minister, of whom I originally asked this question. I have worked with her. I know she cares about the women in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee. I care about the status of women in Canada. We are addressing issues that are important, like femicide and intimate partner violence.

However, when people cannot afford to live and put a roof over their heads, then we are not really hitting all the priorities. I think it is becoming of everyone in the House to bring forward corrections to the policies that have led us to this place and to make sure that we can make life more affordable, that we can bring food prices down, that we can take the taxes off gas and home heating and that we can make sure we have a housing supply that brings the housing costs down so that mothers can afford to feed their children, single seniors are not forced to eat cat food, and we can have a better country.

I am counting on the minister to answer my question. What is she going to do to address the affordability crisis that is facing women in Canada?

What policies will the government reverse in order to bring the costs down so that women in this country can afford to eat, heat and house themselves?