MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Jamie Schmale

Follow by RSS

Schmale presses the government to defend private property rights after the Cowichan decision, pushes for real accountability when federal departments fail Indigenous treaty commitments, and is steering a bill to make forced sterilization a criminal offence. He often opens with thanks and tributes, saying, “I would be remiss if I did not point out” others’ work.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
89 / 100 over 45 statements
Signal 82 / 100
Relevance 85 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 99 / 100
Loses points more than most for Thanks and tributes.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1 Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 45 of 47 statements graded so far.

Statements 47

Government Orders ·

Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act

“American tribes are trying to get a say over Canadian energy projects in British Columbia. The government has done nothing to stop this foreign interference. When will the government stand up to them?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 9 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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

“The government is delaying the replacement of an old pipeline with too many reviews. This is shutting down operations and putting 750 people out of work. Why will the government not approve this pipeline quickly?”
Official Hansard

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

“Imperial Oil is shutting down in Norman Wells, which provides most of the town's taxes. A local pipeline is also stuck in environmental reviews. I want to know what the minister is doing to create jobs and economic activity for the people there.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling of the legislation and her work on the file. In regard to pushing forward Bill C‑27, we did note that, in 2022 to 2024, then prime minister Trudeau announced an expansion of one million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories, covering 25% of its land and waters, and to reach that goal by 2025. That announcement was included. Now, Imperial Oil in Norman Wells announced just a few months ago that it will be ceasing operations within that village. The village itself receives about 70% of its tax base from the operations of Imperial Oil. There is a pipeline that would take energy from Norman Wells down to Alberta, line 21, that is caught in three separate environmental assessments. What is the minister doing to spark economic activity for the people of Norman Wells?

Oral Questions ·

Northern Affairs

“Northern Indigenous communities paid the carbon tax on fuel and are still waiting for their refund. When will they get their money back?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, northern indigenous communities paid the Liberal carbon tax when they bought their fuel in bulk. The tax has now been repealed, yet a year later these communities are still waiting for their refund. On what date will these communities receive their money? I would like just the date, please.

Statements by Members ·

Murray Fearrey

“I want to honour Murray Fearrey, who died on May 28. He spent nearly 60 years in local government helping the people of Haliburton. I send my condolences to his family.”
Official Hansard

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

Private Members' Business ·

The Criminal Code

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it a crime to sterilize someone without their consent. I am thanking the survivors who pushed for this law.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The government is hurting reconciliation and creating uncertainty by failing to protect private property rights in British Columbia. I want the government to support the Conservative motion to fix this problem.”
  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Respect 72 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “that member from British Columbia, who should know better”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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

“I want the government to vote for our motion today. It protects private property rights in agreements with First Nations.”
Official Hansard

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

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I never said the Cowichan Tribes would force people off their land. I am saying the government's failure to do its job has caused huge uncertainty about property rights. Even the premier of British Columbia said this court ruling hurts private property rights, and it has already caused a 100-million-dollar project to be cancelled.”
Official Hansard

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

In response to a question from Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

“The Liberals say they support private property rights, but their actions in court show the opposite. In 2018, they chose not to defend these rights in a lower court. Because of that choice, they are not allowed to argue for them in higher courts now.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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

Statements by Members ·

Property Rights

“People in British Columbia are worried about their private property rights after recent court decisions and agreements with First Nations. We support reconciliation and Indigenous rights, but homeowners need certainty. I want the government to clearly explain how it will protect private property rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the security of private property rights. Following the Cowichan decision, many Canadians were looking for clear assurances from the federal government about the stability of fee simple ownership and the implications for homeowners across British Columbia. Instead, questions remain about the government’s approach in court and about agreements reached with the Musqueam nation, which some homeowners and stakeholders believe have added further uncertainty. Conservatives believe reconciliation should proceed in a way that provides transparency, certainty and fairness for all. We respect indigenous rights. We respect the Constitution. We recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation and the need to address historical wrongs. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to provide greater certainty and clarity on how private property rights will be protected to ensure future agreements give homeowners certainty and to restore confidence in Canada’s land title system.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The member says this is only a provincial problem, but he asked the Prime Minister about it just days ago. The city had to go to court to protect private property owners. Why did the federal government not do its job to prevent this problem?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, just a few moments ago, implied that this is only a provincial matter. Well, I would say to the member opposite, it is so much of a provincial matter that, just a few days ago, he asked the Prime Minister a lobbed question about this very issue, to which the Prime Minister had to respond. The member says it is clearly a provincial issue, yet he had the Prime Minister answer. The member also talked about the City of Richmond and that the city should have notified the residents. However, they were the only ones in court, in the longest trial in Canadian history, to argue for private property owners. Why did the government not do its job and avoid the situation we are in now?

“The government failed to defend private property rights in court, so it cannot use that argument on appeal. A court ruling has now weakened private property ownership laws in British Columbia. How does the government expect to win in court when it made this mistake?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the argument of private property at court. The member opposite, being involved in the law, should know that if we do not make the argument in the lower court, we cannot use that argument at appeal or if it goes to the Supreme Court. The government cannot make that argument. The other thing the court decision did was that it eviscerated sections 23 and 25 of the B.C. Land Title Act, which is the underpinning of private ownership in the city of Richmond and within the province of British Columbia. Again, how does the government expect to use an argument and win at court with something it cannot actually use?

In response to a question from Jaime Battiste

“I never said the Cowichan band would kick people off their land. I said this situation creates uncertainty for private homeowners and businesses. British Columbia even had to step in to help people get bank loans because of this. The government is causing this uncertainty.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. The member used the comment that we have heard a lot. He was talking about disinformation. I do not think at any point in the debate today implied that the Cowichan band would be kicking people off their land. I do not think anyone on this side has said that in all the time we have been debating this, so I do not know where that member is actually getting it from. We have said it creates uncertainty within the marketplace, regarding private business and private home ownership, and that is exactly what it is creating, so much so that the Province of British Columbia actually had to come in to backstop home and business owners who are trying to obtain financing through the banks. There is uncertainty. That is true. That is not misinformation. The government also, in 2018, told its lawyers to stop arguing for fee simple property. That is a fact. There are also numerous other things the government has done that create this uncertainty, and that is what we are arguing here. The government expects to win in court on appeal with an argument it cannot make.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“People in Richmond are worried about their homes and businesses because of a recent court decision. The government says it protects property owners, but its lawyers stopped defending basic property rights in court years ago. How can it win in court now when it gave up that argument earlier?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole’s speech was amazing. He is very passionate about the issue, given that the Cowichan decision affects a portion of his riding. He deals every day with people who are worried about the future of their homes and businesses. Maybe we can talk about the government, in 2018, deciding that its lawyers would stop arguing for fee simple property. I think that is the crux of the issue. To that point, the government says it stands up for fee simple property owners, but maybe the member could opine on how the government expects to win a court case with an argument it cannot use in appeal because it did not use it in the lower court.

“A recent court case is hurting property values and cancelling big business deals in British Columbia. People in Richmond are losing money on their homes because the government failed to do its job. Also, the Liberals are blocking our committee from debating this issue.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my Bloc counterpart. While I do usually get along and agree with a lot of what she has to say, especially in the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I do disagree with some of what she said in her speech, particularly around perception. I want to read to the House a headline from Global News dated December 11, 2025: “Cowichan case blamed for sinking B.C. property deals, including luxury hotel purchase”. That was a few million dollars. The member next to me has another one where a $15‑million hotel project and development was cancelled as well. I have personally met with people in the city of Richmond affected by this decision. They would like to move, for a variety of reasons, like job opportunities, and they have seen their property values go down a lot further than the market has declined in other parts of the province. There are some real impacts because the government did not do its job. Regarding committee, if the member recalls, there was a notice of motion that we have been told has no chance of being debated because the Liberals disagreed with it.

In response to a question from Rebecca Alty

“The minister says I am spreading false information and causing fear. I want her to tell me which part of my speech is not true. Land owners and businesses are losing value on their properties and struggling to get loans because of the government's actions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the minister, but I have some deep concerns with what she was saying. The minister implied that the opposition is fearmongering. I would invite her to speak to the property owners and business owners affected by this, who are watching their properties drop amid the continued questions about whether they are able to refinance their house or business. The minister also spoke about misinformation. I am wondering which part of my speech is misinformation. Was it that in 2018, the government removed arguments for fee simple property within the Cowichan case? Was it that the Province of British Columbia had to step in to backstop business owners and homeowners to be able to secure financing to continue their operations? Was it the proposed developments that were cancelled because of this? Was it where they signed an agreement with Musqueam that did not take fee simple property? Which part is misinformation?

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“The government is making deals behind closed doors without talking to property owners or neighbouring First Nations. People only found out about court decisions that affect their land from the news or the city. The government needs to be open and do proper consultations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think what we saw in the Cowichan case was that nobody informed the property owners that their property could be affected if a decision by the courts was released, which we see now. Nobody let them know. The only reason the property owners in Richmond found out was because of the media or the city itself. The federal government was silent. In the Musqueam agreement, there were no consultations within neighbouring nations. Nobody else was consulted on this agreement. The government is negotiating all this stuff away behind closed doors. Canadians deserve better.

In response to a question from Connie Cody

“Indigenous land claims are causing uncertainty across the country. The government's new agreements fail to protect private property. People who buy land and pay their mortgages need to know their property is safe.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that goes to the second part of my speech. We have the Cowichan decision, with so much uncertainty around a large swath of land within the city of Richmond. Then we have the Musqueam agreement, which is basically a menu for future talks to land on a treaty or self-government agreement, wherever that may land. In that agreement, the government, knowing all this uncertainty, did not address, or at least put in protections, that private property within the claimed area was off limits and was not going to be on the menu. The government, unfortunately, went ahead anyway, knowing that this uncertainty is spreading across the country. Now we have cases in New Brunswick and elsewhere that are growing because of this uncertainty. People need to have trust in the system, so property owners know that if they buy a piece of property in good faith and pay their mortgage, they are entitled to that property.

In response to a question from Rebecca Alty

“The federal government failed property owners in Richmond by telling its lawyers not to defend their land rights in court. Now a judge ruled that parts of the land title system do not apply there, and people are losing property value.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. The government in 2018 directed its lawyers not to stand up for fee simple property. Justice Young cited in her very lengthy decision that the federal government was not there to stand up for fee simple property owners. Now the decision has been made, in Justice Young’s decision, pointing out that two sections of British Columbia’s land title system do not apply to a swath of land within the city of Richmond. It was the federal government that failed those landowners, those businesses owners and those people who are trying to sell their homes and watching their property values sink. That is unfortunate, and people deserve better.