Debates of June 8th, 2026

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the third time and passed.

The Criminal Code

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This will be my first time speaking to Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sterilization procedures. We are now at third reading.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development, I must say I have heard from a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is hard not to be moved by what indigenous women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, have gone through. We know that these women, including women with disabilities, are the most affected by something that simply should not exist. It is unacceptable, even terrifying, for women.

I think the fact that I am here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to offer our support for the quick passage of this bill is a victory in and of itself, a victory that belongs to all women and their loved ones. We know that when tragedy strikes, we are all affected by what those around us are going through, so this will be their victory too, because I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House to finally pass this bill, which is actually very straightforward.

This bill amends the Criminal Code to clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 268(1), a sterilization procedure is “an act that wounds or maims a person”. The bill defines a “sterilization procedure” as “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.”

This constitutes aggravated assault. As we have already done with regard to rape, we want to specify in the Criminal Code that this indeed constitutes aggravated assault. We want to ensure that, even though some people have talked about symbols, we want to go beyond symbols. We really want to ensure that we always strengthen the protection of those women whose bodily integrity is threatened. We want to ensure they are protected and we also want to assure them that they will be able to access the same health care as any other woman and that their free and informed consent will be required and taken into account.

Certainly, as critic, I wanted to ensure that unintended consequences of medical procedures would not be included. A number of people provided testimony and some expressed concerns. We want to ensure the bill has the desired effect. That is indeed what we tried to do, to allay any possible fears about the bill, and we have done so. Some of the fears were expressed by the medical community, but all the answers provided were able to, as I said, allay people's fears.

For example, the definition I read in the bill earlier requires the primary purpose of the procedure to result in the “permanent prevention of reproduction”. One of the examples we considered is that of a patient who consents to chemotherapy, which could indirectly result in sterilization. We ensured that this would not be covered by the bill. It would therefore not be included in the Criminal Code.

Once again, the purpose of the bill ensures that it applies only to acts that are intentionally sterilizing. I gave one example, but there are others. The idea is really to target intentional acts, acts that are performed without the patient's free and informed consent. We really wanted this provision to apply both to doctors and everyone else. Situations resulting in sterilization as a side effect are not covered by the bill.

Then there was section 45 of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects doctors who are trying to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed obtaining free and informed consent in an emergency can be extremely difficult. It is certainly a different matter when a life is at risk and action must be taken. It is not considered a violation of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects the medical profession.

That was pretty much the idea we put forward in the last study. The goal was to dispel any fears people might have because not knowing the potential impact is always scary. That could make people reluctant to support the bill.

Both sides of the House now agree that the bill should be passed, particularly in light of all the testimony that has been heard. It is important to remember that, while witnesses appeared before the committee in this Parliament, the bill was also examined during the previous Parliament, so we have been working on it for a long time. We have broken down several barriers. Now we are coming to the very end. That means that there is a consensus. I believe that this is the most rigorous and responsible approach, even though, deep down, we fully support a bill like this one, which seeks to put an end to all discrimination regarding sterilization. However, we also need to listen to all community stakeholders and there is a strong consensus there too.

To wrap up, I will not read out all of the statistics that I have in front of me or all of the international calls for action. For example, the United Nations is calling for the enactment of legislation to protect all women from this type of injustice or, quite frankly, this type of crime. We are merely strengthening the Criminal Code. I hope that we can also provide the necessary resources. Yes, this is enshrined in the Criminal Code, but we are well aware that not everything can be solved through the Criminal Code.

This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, we need to be able to support women while engaging in dialogue and collaborating with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure we address the full scope of the issue. As I was saying, for me, the recurring theme is truly protecting women, being able to assure them that their bodies belong to them and that no one can make choices for them. What I am saying applies to just about every indigenous affairs issue that comes before the House and that we are involved in. We must consult with women, respect them and ensure that they are stakeholders in the decisions being made on their behalf.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to all the women listening to us.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter of left or right, but we could say it is a matter of right and wrong, or at least to ensure that a historical wrong is never repeated.

Four years ago, the Senate human rights committee issued its report on forced or coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. For many people, it was eye‑opening. Canadians are vaguely aware of the history of forced sterilization in this country. Our history at times is nothing to be proud of.

In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children. The state would force those deemed unfit to be sterilized so they could not reproduce. This was, and is, a reprehensible view.

Sadly, it was my home province of Alberta that led the way in this sad chapter of our history. The provincial Sexual Sterilization Act was passed in 1928, and more than 2,800 women were sterilized before the act was repealed in 1972. These women were denied the privilege of having children because society felt there was something wrong with them. What is more, they had no say in the matter. Many were sterilized at a young age. They were not even aware of what was being done to them, hardly the actions of a society and a government that was supposed to protect its citizens.

While Alberta may have led the way, it was not the only province to carry out these shameful acts. What is even more reprehensible is who the state deemed to be unworthy of having children. Young people and minorities from indigenous backgrounds were targeted. Furthermore, many of those were declared to be mentally deficient. Because of that classification, their rights were denied, and they were sterilized without their consent.

Canadians understand now that these actions were wrong; the product of another time and a warped view of the humanity of some individuals. We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that.

Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous and racialized persons. It will end the sterilization of persons without their consent.

Section 268 of the Criminal Code deals with the crime of aggravated assault. I think we can all agree that sterilizing someone without their consent is indeed a form of assault.

Bill S-228 would add a subsection, 268.1, to the Criminal Code of Canada, clarifying what a sterilization procedure is and ensuring it is understood that a sterilization procedure is an act that falls under this section. It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.

I should point out that, at the Senate committee, concerns were raised by witnesses and senators that the original drafting of Bill S‑228 was over-complicated and that it might have unintended consequences, especially in cases of emergency surgeries or medical procedures resulting in sterilization. That has been rectified. After consultation with the Minister of Justice and legal advisers, the bill was simplified while maintaining its core goal of making it explicitly clear in the Criminal Code that forced sterilization meets the requirements of an aggravated assault. It would be against the law and would be prosecuted.

Some hon. members might be wondering about the issue of consent. What about those situations where an individual, for medical or other reasons, desires to be sterilized? Would this still constitute an assault? After all, in the Criminal Code, consent is not a defence against a charge of aggravated assault. The case law on that is very clear. However, there is jurisprudence concerning when the patient or substitute decision-maker is unable to consent and there is demonstrable severe suffering or an imminent threat to the life or health of the patient. In that case, a doctor has the duty to do what is immediately necessary, without consent.

Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.

If this is a situation from the past, why do we need to address it today? Why is the bill necessary? As the Senate report noted after hearing from witnesses, this is not just a historical issue. The conclusion was that involuntary sterilization continues in Canada, under-reported and underestimated, and it needs to stop. As in the past, the targets are marginalized people, including racialized women, women with disabilities, institutionalized persons and indigenous women.

Justice demands that we in the House deal with this situation. Forced sterilization is a clear human rights issue. Non-consenting sterilization is aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. It is as simple as that. Legislation, of course, is not enough. The bill cannot fix the past trauma and harms suffered by victims, but it would go a long way to preventing future violations and to providing survivors some measure of justice.

It is a cliché to say that people who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, but those words have become a cliché because there is a lot of truth in them. With Bill S-228, we in the House have an opportunity to show that we have indeed learned from our past and that we are concerned about our present and, of course, our future. We want to put an end to the practice of forced sterilization in this country once and for all. We have the opportunity to do something meaningful. I encourage hon. members to do the right thing and support the legislation.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

At the outset, I would like to thank the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the Hon. Senator Yvonne Boyer, for her leadership, dedication and tireless advocacy on this issue. Senator Boyer has been a powerful voice for survivors and for indigenous women across this country, and her work has helped bring national attention to a practice that should never have occurred in Canada.

I also would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for sponsoring the legislation in the House of Commons and helping move it through the parliamentary process.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, whose courage, persistence and willingness to share deeply personal experiences have brought us to this point. Their voices have been at the centre of this discussion from the very beginning. The bill exists because survivors refused to allow these experiences to remain hidden and because they demanded accountability, recognition and action.

Today, members from all sides of the House have an opportunity to take an important step forward. Bill S‑228 is straightforward in its purpose. It would clarify that sterilization procedures carried out without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault under the Criminal Code.

The legislation would not create a new criminal offence. It would not change the law of consent. It would not alter legitimate medical practice. Rather, it would make explicit what many Canadians would reasonably expect the law to already recognize: A sterilization procedure performed without free and informed consent is among the most serious violations of a person's bodily autonomy and should be treated accordingly.

At its core, the bill is about consent. Consent is one of the foundational principles of both our criminal law and our health care system. Consent must be given freely, consent must be informed, and consent must be voluntary. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion, manipulation, pressure, threats, deception or abuse of authority.

These principles are not new. They are already deeply embedded in Canadian law, yet the experiences that have been brought forward by survivors demonstrate why clarity matters. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the issue was never simply what the law said on paper. The issue was whether the system recognized the seriousness of what had happened to them. The issue was whether there was sufficient clarity and accountability. That is why Bill S-228 is important. It would send a clear message that sterilization without free and informed consent is not merely a breach of medical ethics but is also a profound violation of bodily autonomy that engages the criminal law.

Discussions surrounding the bill have also provided an opportunity to reflect on a difficult chapter in our country's history. We know that forced and coerced sterilization occurred in Canada. We know that indigenous women were disproportionately affected. We know that many survivors experienced lasting physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and intergenerational harms. We know that these harms have contributed to deep mistrust of institutions and systems that should have protected these women.

The experiences shared by survivors have been powerful and heartbreaking, and they have reminded all of us that legislation is ultimately about people. Behind every discussion of criminal law, every amendment and every committee study, there are individuals whose lives have been affected. The bill recognizes that reality.

One of the themes that emerged repeatedly during committee study was the importance of ensuring that the bill provides clarity while avoiding unintended consequences. I believe that the legislation successfully achieves that balance. Some questions were raised about whether the bill could affect lawful and consensual medical procedures. The answer is no. The bill would preserve lawful medical care. Some questions were raised about whether physicians acting appropriately in emergency circumstances could somehow face new criminal liability. Again, the answer is no.

The legislation would clarify the existing state of the law. It would not change the legal framework governing emergency medical treatment. It would not remove existing protections available to health professionals acting with reasonable care and skill. It would not alter the long-standing principles that apply when urgent medical intervention is necessary to preserve life or health. These safeguards already exist within Canadian law and would continue to exist.

That point was reinforced through testimony received during committee study. In other words, Bill S-228 would strengthen accountability for non-consensual sterilization, while preserving appropriate medical care. Those two objectives are not in conflict; indeed, they are complementary. A strong health care system depends upon trust, and trust depends upon consent.

One aspect of the bill that deserves particular attention is its use of a “for greater certainty” provision. The legislation would not attempt to reinvent the criminal law. Instead, it would clarify how existing principles would apply in a specific context. Parliament uses this type of provision when it wishes to remove doubt and to provide greater certainty regarding the application of the law. That is precisely what the bill would do. It would provide greater clarity to courts, prosecutors, law enforcement and, most important, to survivors and Canadians. It would reinforce that sterilization without free and informed consent is conduct of the utmost seriousness.

Another important feature of the bill is that it reflects a collaborative approach. This is not a partisan issue. The bill originated in the Senate, was advanced by Senator Boyer, was sponsored in the House of Commons by a Conservative member and has received support from members across party lines. That is how Parliament should function when addressing issues of fundamental human dignity. There are times when we will disagree vigorously, but there should also be moments when we can come together around shared principles. Respect for bodily autonomy is one of those principles. Respect for free and informed consent is another of those principles, as is the dignity of every person. Bill S-228 reflects those values.

I also want to acknowledge the many organizations, advocates, academics, medical professionals and community leaders who have contributed to this conversation. We heard from individuals with expertise in reproductive justice, indigenous health, medical ethics, women's rights and criminal law. While witnesses approached the issue from different perspectives, there was broad recognition of the importance of affirming bodily autonomy and reinforcing the principle of free and informed consent. That broad support speaks to the strength of the bill. It also speaks to the seriousness of the issue before us.

The legislation is also consistent with broader efforts to advance reconciliation. Reconciliation requires more than words; it requires action, listening, responding to the experiences of indigenous people and taking concrete steps when harms have occurred. No single bill can undo the harms experienced by survivors. No single legislative amendment can rebuild trust overnight. No single measure can address every aspect of this issue. That does not mean Parliament should do nothing.

Meaningful progress often occurs through concrete and targeted steps. Bill S-228 is one such step. It would recognize the harms that occurred, reinforce accountability, strengthen clarity and affirm principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society.

Throughout this debate, we have heard discussions about bodily autonomy. That concept is sometimes discussed in legal, medical or policy language, but at its heart, bodily autonomy means something simple: Every person has the right to make decisions about their own body, those decisions must belong to the individual, and procedures with permanent consequences cannot be imposed through coercion, pressure, manipulation or abuse of authority. These principles should not be controversial; they should unite us, and I believe they do.

The passage of Bill S-228 would not mark the end of this conversation. There would continue to be important discussions about patient safety, about reconciliation and about accountability. Those conversations should continue, but today Parliament is being asked to decide a specific question: Should the Criminal Code clearly state that sterilization procedures performed without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault? I believe the answer is yes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This legislation addresses a practice that should not even exist. Every Canadian has the right to make medical decisions for themselves, free from coercion, intimidation or force. When that right is violated, the consequences can be lifelong.

Bill S-228 would explicitly recognize forced or coerced sterilization as aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code states that, “Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.” Bill S-228 would add clarity by making it explicit that a sterilization procedure counts as wounding or maiming. It would also reinforce the principle that sterilization must never occur without free, prior and informed consent.

The Criminal Code has a needed exemption for medical professionals, but there is a gap when it comes to coerced or forced sterilization. Even though it happens by a licensed professional in a medical facility, it is still an invasive assault with permanent consequences. This conversation is not just about legal definitions, though. This is about women in vulnerable situations being coerced into a decision that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is about the dignity of the individual and the responsibility we share to protect those who may be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

It would be easy to dismiss forced sterilization as a historical issue, but, quite shockingly, we have allegations and documented cases of coercion from less than 20 years ago. The practice of forced sterilization is disturbing, but its origin in eugenics is especially troubling. The history of eugenics influenced laws and public policy in Canada, especially in the early 20th century. Some of those laws remained in place until the 1980s. In that history, individuals were judged on the basis of disability, race, poverty, social status and other characteristics, and were labelled as unfit to reproduce. These harmful ideas led to sterilization laws in some provinces and influenced policies that disproportionately affected indigenous people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Thousands of individuals were subjected to sterilization procedures, often without meaningful consent.

While those laws were eventually repealed, the attitudes that allowed them to exist did not disappear. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights found evidence that forced and coerced sterilization continued long after formal eugenics legislation ended, and that reports of such practices have continued into recent decades.

The lessons of the 20th century are clear. Whenever a society begins to judge the value of a human life based on ethnicity, disability, social standing or any other characteristic, fundamental rights are put at risk. When individuals are treated as problems to be managed rather than people deserving dignity and respect, abuse follows.

Now we have an opportunity to further reject that ideology. Bill S-228 affirms that every Canadian possesses equal worth, equal dignity and equal protection under the law. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and others have been disproportionately affected. Many have described coercion that occurred in moments of extreme vulnerability, such as while recovering from childbirth, under the effects of medication or facing significant pressures from authoritative figures. These accounts demand our attention.

Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences requires extraordinary courage. Many have spoken publicly, not only to seek recognition for what happened to them, but also to ensure that future generations are protected from similar harm. One of those survivors is Katy Bear, a Cree woman from my home province of Saskatchewan, where, regretfully, this took place all too often. She testified that she was pressured into sterilization shortly after giving birth at the age of 21. I will read some of that testimony, taken from a CBC News article. It reads:

Bear says she had never considered a tubal ligation before she underwent the procedure at Saskatoon’s Royal University Hospital in 2005. At the time, she was still in the hospital recovering from the birth of her fourth child.

“They [health staff] told me it was contraception,” recalled Bear.

“I was told because I was 21 and had four kids, that I probably shouldn't have any more, that my kids would be taken away by Child and Family Services.”

“I thought, it's a threat.”

Both she and her partner at the time were employed and owned their own home, she said.

“I never had anybody say I was under the watchful eye of the ministry, of being a bad mom,” said Bear.

“They rolled me in, gave me a consent form and they said, ‘just sign this, that's all you need to do.’”

Sadly, hers is not the only story by far. Nicole Rabbit, a member of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, appeared before the Senate committee studying Bill S-250, the predecessor to this legislation. In her testimony, she spoke about her own experience and about the impact forced sterilization had on her family across generations. She shared that in her family alone, she, her mother and her niece had all been sterilized against their will. It went across generations. Reflecting on the harm caused by these practices, Ms. Rabbit told the committee, “It’s like you wiped out a generation.”

Those words should weigh heavily on every member of the House. Every human life has inherent value. No government, institution or authority figure should ever have the power to decide that someone is less worthy of having a family because of their ethnicity, disability, economic circumstances or background. The experiences shared by survivors remind us of the consequences of that principle being forgotten or not being enforced. Forced sterilization is not simply a medical procedure performed without consent. It is a violation that affects families, communities and future generations. The harm extends far beyond a single moment in a hospital room. It leaves lasting impacts that survivors carry for years and, often, for decades.

Other indigenous women have recounted similar experiences before parliamentary committees and in media reports. Some have described lasting feelings of grief and loss. Others have spoken about the erosion of trust in medical institutions and the difficulty of discussing what happened, even with close family members. The impact of forced or coerced sterilization extends far beyond the procedure itself. For many survivors, it affects family relationships, emotional well-being and future life plans. It can also create lasting feelings of institutional betrayal and broken trust in the institutions that are expected to provide care and protection.

I will remind this place that institutions are made up of people, and Parliament has a responsibility to respond. Bill S-228 represents an important step in that process and that response. Clearly identifying forced or coerced sterilization as an aggravated assault would strengthen protections within the Criminal Code and affirm the importance of informed consent, which is something that should be spread across absolutely every procedure by medical professionals. It would also provide greater certainty for victims and survivors. Criminal law should clearly reflect the seriousness of conduct that permanently alters a person's reproductive capacity without their genuine agreement.

At its foundation, informed consent requires more than a signature on a form. It requires that a person understands the nature of the procedure, the consequences involved and the alternatives that are available. It must be given voluntarily and without pressure. Consent obtained through intimidation, manipulation or coercion is not consent. That principle should be beyond dispute. The legislation gives Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that principle in a meaningful way.

I want to especially celebrate the people who have made this happen. Senator Yvonne Boyer is an amazing leader who has done an amazing thing in advocating for survivors and ensuring that their experiences cannot be ignored. Her work alongside indigenous organizations, legal advocates and community leaders has contributed significantly to the growing awareness of this issue across Canada.

Most importantly, I want to recognize the survivors. To the survivors who have courageously shared their experiences, I want to express my incredible thankfulness. Their willingness to speak has brought attention to an issue that, unfortunately, many Canadians knew little about. Their advocacy has helped create the opportunity for meaningful change. While legislation alone cannot undo the pain that many have experienced, it can help ensure stronger protection for the future and provide a clear framework for accountability.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to forced sterilization procedures.

This is a short bill, but it deals with a grave wrong. It speaks to bodily autonomy, consent, human dignity, the equal worth of every person and the duty of the state to protect those who have been harmed by the systems that should have protected them. Bill S-228 would amend the Criminal Code to make it crystal clear that a sterilization procedure performed without consent is an act that “wounds or maims a person” for the purpose of an aggravated assault. It would also define what is meant by a “sterilization procedure”, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction.

At first glance, some may ask why this change is needed. We already have laws against assault. We already have rules around consent in health care. We already have medical standards and professional oversight. However, the painful truth is that those protections have not always protected people equally. They have not always been clear enough. They have not always been enforced. For too many women, especially indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and others in vulnerable situations, the promise of protection and the promise of consent have been broken in this country.

A forced or coerced sterilization is not a minor medical error. It is not a paperwork problem. It is a profound violation of the person. It takes away from someone the ability to make one of the most personal decisions they will ever make in their life. It will affect their body, their mind, their family, their culture and their future. It is a harm that can last for generations. There is a saying in my own culture that when a person saves a life, it is as if they have saved the entire world. The corollary to that is that a person who prevents someone from making a life is preventing them from creating an entire world.

No one should be pressured into giving up the ability to have children. No one should be asked for consent while they are in pain, in fear, under the effects medication, in labour or under the control of a person in authority. No one should be treated as though their poverty, identity, disability, race, age, family situation or social standing makes them less worthy of respect. Consent that is forced is not consent, no matter the situation. Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent given without proper information is not consent.

If someone has to ask why we need a bill like this in 2026, they are lucky. They are lucky to not know someone who has been in this situation. They are lucky not to have experienced this in their community.

This bill is about drawing a clear line in federal criminal law. It would tell survivors that Parliament sees them. It would tell the health care system that vague language is not enough. It would tell prosecutors, the police, professional bodies and institutions that this is not a grey area and this is not a decision to be made on the fly. This is not something that someone can do because they think it is best in the circumstances. It is violence and it is a violation, and we will have a law in this country that makes it clear that it is to be treated as such.

I want to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer and everyone who has made it possible for all of us who have spoken this morning to stand in this House today to make it clear that this is not just something that Canada recognizes, but something that we will take concrete steps to prevent in the future.

Everyone in this House believes in the dignity of the person. We believe in personal freedom, but freedom is not real when a person's body can be controlled by someone else. We believe in accountability, but accountability is not real when the people who commit or enable serious harm to another human being in this country face no clear consequences. We believe in equal justice under the law, but justice is not equal when vulnerable people are less likely to be heard, believed or protected. We have an opportunity in the House today to do the right thing, not just for past generations, but for future generations and for those who are still suffering today with the burden of having had those experiences.

The history behind this bill is hard to face. Canada has had a long record of forced and coerced sterilization, often tied to racism, eugenics, colonization and the idea that some lives are less vulnerable than others. Those ideas were not harmless theories. They shaped policies, institutions and medical practices. They harmed first nations, Métis, Inuit and other indigenous peoples in this country. They harmed Black and racialized women. They harmed people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people who were placed in institutions and stripped of control in their own lives. By acknowledging these wrongs in the House, by putting them into the record of this place to be read and seen by future generations, we do not make Canada weaker; we make Canada stronger.

We must also be honest about the fact that this is not only history. Survivors have come forward in recent years. They have spoken about being pressured in their most vulnerable moments. They have spoken of procedures that they did not understand, did not freely choose and did not consent to. They have also spoken of the shame, grief, fear, distrust and deep injury that has come with that. That is a second, additional injury that we have done to those people in this country, on top of the forced sterilization they had to endure without their consent. Many have had to carry that pain in silence, so all who speak to this bill in the House this morning lend our voices to them. We want to make sure they know that they do not have to suffer in silence, but even when they have to suffer in silence, we in this place will suffer with them.

When survivors share these stories, our first duty is to listen, but our second duty is to act. Bill S-228 would not fix every harm in this country, but it is a start. Criminal law is a tool. Health care is, of course, largely within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Professional regulation belongs to colleges and licensing bodies. Hospitals, health authorities, medical schools and governments all have work to do. There must be better training on informed consent. There must be cultural safety. There must be clear reporting pathways.

What we have done this morning in the House, and what my colleagues have done with Bill S-228, is a start. We have made a powerful pronouncement about what is to be tolerated in this country. Hopefully, in doing that, we will not only make sure that these atrocities do not happen to future generations but bring comfort to the people who have come to this place to advocate for the bill, letting them know that their advocacy, their actions, the things they have done and the messages they have brought to this place have been heard, that their sacrifices and the things they have done matter and that they have been a part of the solution for future generations.

I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and with those who were never able to be born, today and always, through this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes has the floor for his right of reply.

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

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that it be carried unanimously.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock at this time so that we could begin the opposition day motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

moved:

That, given that the Liberal government has driven Canada into the G20's only recession, Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both downgraded growth to below 1%, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest report shows slowing growth and a weakening fiscal outlook that shows a bigger-thanpromised deficit with only a 1% chance that the government will meet its fiscal anchor, the House call on the government to reverse the costly, inflationary policies that have given Canada the G20's only recession.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills.

Do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I get started, I want to notify you that I will be splitting my time with my good friend, fellow Calgarian and sometime airline seatmate, the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

There is nothing technical about the 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line hungry because of rising grocery prices due to the Liberal government's failed policies. There is nothing technical about the dad in Windsor who has just lost his job telling his kids around the dinner table that times are going to get tough because of the failed policies of the Liberal government. There is nothing technical about the single mom who is at the grocery store wondering what she can and cannot buy this week and how much she will actually be able to eat because of failed Liberal policies.

The Prime Minister is the guy who said he could get Canada back on track. He sold himself as the guy who would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He sold himself as that during the election. What he ended up doing was plunging Canada into a full-blown Liberal recession, and in fact the only country in the entire G20 to do so. The Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G7 to plunge their economy into economic decline in three out of the last four quarters. He has been Prime Minister only for a year, and he is already delivering these failed results. Canadians are the ones who are having to pay for it: through food bank lines that are growing, through the insolvencies that are growing, and just through the pain and suffering we are seeing all across this country because of failed policies.

Last week, the independent PBO came out with a very scathing report on the government and its so-called fiscal anchors, which seem like they do not even exist anymore. First, members will remember, back in the day, when Chrystia Freeland was here and claimed that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down. The Liberals were so confident in that, they completely removed it as a fiscal anchor altogether. Poof, they got rid of it, but now they quietly, sneakily, brought it back. However, the PBO slammed them, just last week, saying that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go up, debunking their claim that it would go down.

In their last budget, the Liberals brought in another fiscal anchor. They said they would do deficit-to-GDP ratio. However, the PBO slammed them last week, saying that they will have a less than 1% chance of meeting that fiscal anchor, but that percentage is still better than actually having a Liberal answer a question in this place. Then they said they would balance their operating budget, but we just found out last week that they are actually going to spend $7 billion more than what they sold Canadians.

It is always these fake promises, these fake handshakes and fake MOUs. Everything about this government is fake. The Liberals sell themselves as economic kings or someone who can handle the economy, but at the end of the day, it is always failure. It is more costs, more debt, more taxes, and it is always on the national credit card. At the end of the day, Canadians have to pay for all these Liberal failures.

The PBO said, “Business investment continues to lag”, which is something the Bank of Canada has been warning about for years now. In fact, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, many years ago, said that Canada is in a “break glass” emergency. They said it is about our productivity, which has not gone up. Productivity and the cost of living or the way people live, their standard of living, are the exact same thing, according to them, and that is why we are seeing so much pain and suffering across the country.

The PBO said that “firms postpone expansion plans amid heightened uncertainty.” The PBO also said, “Persistent uncertainty is...weighing on business investment and household spending”. Businesses are not investing, expanding or hiring because they do not have confidence in the direction of the economy.

That is clear to see in the numbers. In the last year alone, $1 trillion of net Canadian investment has flown out of Canada to the U.S., and since this Prime Minister took office, $20 billion of net investment has also left Canada.

We hear the Liberals brag about how good the economy is and how good Canadians have it. Then why do we not see it? They will cherry-pick or come up with random things that they think Canadians will fall for, but every time a Canadian goes to the grocery store or fills up a tank of gas, whenever they pay for something or get their taxes done, they see clearly and fully experience this full-blown Liberal recession, because when costs go up for them, that is what they experience. When their wages are not going up and their incomes are not sufficient, that is something they actually experience. The Liberal government continues to tell those 2.2 million Canadians in a food bank line that they are just technically hungry, technically out of food, technically out of money, and the people missing their mortgage payments are just technically experiencing that, but this is what they are actually experiencing.

Canadians are suffering. The Liberals refuse to even listen to Canadians. In fact, the Prime Minister is so out of touch, he said that affordability is the best it has been in an entire decade, which is completely false. Canadians have increasing grocery prices because of things like high taxes and the burden that the Liberal government has put on businesses. On top of that, it is slamming Canadians, farmers, truckers and other industries with its industrial carbon tax, which does not make just the cost of food go up. It makes the cost of everything in the supply chain go up. With Liberal thinking and Liberal math, Liberals think they are just charging the highest emitters or the corporations. Those corporations and businesses will pass on the cost, and that cost, ultimately, has to be paid by the average Canadian. That is why Canadians cannot keep up.

In fact, today, under the Liberals, an average Canadian is spending 120% of their paycheque on necessities like food and shelter. Liberals have doubled the cost of housing and made the cost of food go up. In fact, the Prime Minister gave Canadians the worst food inflation in the entire G7. That is why Canadians are now using up their entire paycheque mostly on housing, and everything else goes on a credit card or they borrow money. We are seeing debt loads. That is why Canadians are now also the most indebted households in the entire G7. They are picking up more and more on credit just for necessities.

It is not like the government does not have solutions in front of it. In fact, for the last 10 years, Conservatives have been putting forward solutions, but for every solution, it seems the Liberal government puts up two or three more problems for Canadians. For instance, what Conservatives would do and what we are proposing is to scrap all the antidevelopment laws the Liberal government passed. Let us get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. Let us get pipelines built in this country, along with LNG plants, mines, dams, all the infrastructure that Canada needs to get its resources to market and spread them out to the world. Let us get those antidevelopment laws out of the way. Let us get rid of the tanker ban. My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill has put forward a bill in this place to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get pipelines built. Let us get a pipeline built to the west coast, but it needs to be able to get from the west coast to Asian markets. We have to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get rid of and scrap the industrial carbon tax, which will make Canada more competitive on the world stage.

The world needs what Canada has. We have it all under our feet. We just need the Liberal government to get out of the way so we can produce more and spread it to the world. We need to lower taxes, whether it is personal, business or corporate tax, so we can create a better investing environment so that investment comes back to Canada and does not flow out. Let us get the capital gains tax deferred, as in the plan the Conservatives have put forward. Any company reinvesting its earned capital gains will be able to defer its capital gains tax so we can get more people investing in more jobs and more equipment and have more investment back into Canada, not let it flow out as the Liberals have done over the last 10 years. The government waste seems endless, whether it is the $20 billion in Liberal-connected insiders or the $90-billion train boondoggle.

Let us get rid of those. Let us get Canada back on track and make Canada the most profitable country in the world.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday.

I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, that out-of-touch Liberal has completely missed the point. Is he really going to stand up and brag about Canada, under the Liberal government, having the second-worst unemployment rate in the entire G7? Since this year started, the Liberal government is still responsible for 120,000 jobs that were lost. In fact, there is a net loss of jobs in this country under the incompetent Liberal government. The Liberals continue to make fake announcements, fake handshakes and fake MOUs. The solution is simple: The Liberal government just needs to get out of the way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He really enjoyed quoting data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to ask him a question on that.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if, tomorrow morning, we were to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline project in western Canada, which is now operational, we would lose money. The project was initially expected to cost about $6 billion, but ultimately cost us $34 billion instead. That means it is not profitable. If we buy a pipeline and have to sell it again, we lose money.

I would like my colleague to be clear. Does he support the government using public funds to buy pipeline projects?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, we did not need to buy a pipeline. Canada did not need to buy a pipeline. It is because of failed Liberal policies, which are antidevelopment and drove investment and proponents of pipelines away, that the government not only bought the pipeline but was over budget by a lot and missed every single timeline target as well. That just goes to the same background that the incompetent Liberal government has, which is that it can never do anything on time or on budget.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, coming from a rural area, when I go to the grocery store, people are telling me how expensive everything is, and it is a two-hour trip for me to go to a grocery store. Food prices are so high. Of course, fuel prices are high. I have had no one tell me they have never had it so good.

I am wondering if the member can expand on that. Has he heard that? I cannot get out of a grocery store for two hours, because it is so expensive and people are blaming me for the food prices.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, who does not do his own grocery shopping and does not care that the Liberals' policies are raising the cost of groceries, when I go grocery shopping, just like the member, I spend at least two hours there because of how many people come up to me and talk to me about how much they are struggling. In fact, last week when I was grocery shopping at the local Superstore, a single mom said to me that she had to move in with her abusive ex-husband once again because she could not afford child care and to live anywhere else, and groceries are the last thing. She is one of those people having to put groceries back. This is the result of failed Liberal policies. This is the direct result. There is nothing technical about the suffering Canadians are facing under the failed Liberal government.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been shouting themselves hoarse trying to convince us. Is there a recession or not? They want to launch a technical debate on this issue, yet the whole thing obscures the real debate, which concerns purchasing power and Canadian productivity. We have a problem: We are not growing. We have a productivity problem.

Do the Conservatives not think it might be more effective for the House to debate fundamental problems rather than definitions?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are in a full-blown Liberal recession, and here is the answer to our productivity issues: Get the Liberal government out of the way, scrap all the antidevelopment laws so we can get more—