Bill S-250 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to clarify that a sterilization procedure is an act that wounds or maims a person for the purposes of subsection 268(1).

The Criminal Code

[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.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, although my friend from the Bloc is not on the indigenous and northern affairs committee anymore, I did appreciate working with him during the many years of that committee. He was a great asset to the group. I miss his contribution greatly, but I do appreciate his support, both of Bill S-250, the previous bill, and also of Bill S-228, the current bill.

The member from the Bloc articulated some of the comments we heard and the testimony we heard at committee. That little segment was from just one witness's testimony, but when hearing the story, we could feel the trauma that the person endured. As the member mentioned, it is not as if it happened many years ago. That is in recent memory. It is trauma that is still fresh in someone's mind, and someone will have to live with the knowledge that they will not be able to have any children.

This touches everyone, and I think we need to act right now.

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at third reading of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures.

At this stage, we are no longer debating whether the issue deserves attention. We are deciding whether Parliament will act. Bill S-228 asks us to confront a reality that is difficult, uncomfortable and deeply troubling: Forced and coerced sterilization has occurred in Canada, it has caused profound harm and it is not confined to the past. The legislation exists because survivors came forward and asked us to act, and today we must answer that call.

I would, of course, like to thank Senator Boyer for all of her work ushering this bill through the Senate, as well as groups like the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice for all of their work, community justice and health equity groups and my colleagues here on all sides of the House. It has been remarkable to see the support from every single party in this House and those that are not official parties, like the NDP and the Green Party, which have supported this as well.

Beginning in the early 20th century, eugenics policies shaped public institutions and legislation. Provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia enacted sterilization laws that allowed the state to permanently prevent individuals from having children. These laws disproportionately targeted indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and people deemed by authorities to be unfit.

Thousands of procedures were carried out, lives were permanently altered and communities were deeply affected. While those laws were repealed by the 1970s, the attitudes that enabled them did not just simply disappear. Evidence presented to Parliament through Senate committee studies, academic research and survivor testimony demonstrates that forced and coerced sterilization continued after the repeal of those laws and continues to be reported today. Many Canadians believe that this practice belongs to history, but the truth is far more difficult. Survivors continue to come forward with accounts from modern hospitals, describing experiences that echo the very same patterns of coercion, pressure, and disregard for autonomy.

We have heard clearly what these experiences look like. Women have described being approached for sterilization at moments of extreme vulnerability, during labour, immediately after childbirth, while medicated, exhausted, and in no position to provide meaningful consent. Some were presented with consent forms they did not understand. Some were told the procedure was reversible, when it was not. Some were pressured through fear: fear of losing access to care, fear of child welfare intervention or fear of being judged or dismissed. Some were never given a choice at all. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern, and they reflect a deeper problem.

At the heart of this issue is the concept of consent. In Canadian law and in medical ethics, consent must be free, informed and voluntary. It must be given by a person with capacity. It must be based on full disclosure of risks and alternatives. It must be given in circumstances where the individual has the time, the clarity and the ability to make a decision without pressure, and it must be free from coercion. When those conditions are not met, consent is not valid.

What we have heard from survivors is that these conditions were often absent. Consent obtained under duress is not consent. Consent obtained through misinformation is not consent. Consent obtained through fear or authority is not consent. It is coercion, and coercion has no place in health care.

The consequences of forced and coerced sterilization are profound. It is not a temporary harm. It is permanent. It alters the course of a person's life. Survivors speak of the grief over the children they were unable to have. They speak of trauma, of anger and of the loss of identity. They speak of a violation that they carry with them for the rest of their life.

For indigenous women, the impact extends even further. In many indigenous communities, the ability to bring children into the world is not only a personal decision; it is also deeply connected to culture, family, language and the continuity of community. When that ability is taken without consent, the harm is not only individual. It is collective, and it is intergenerational.

We must also recognize that this issue does not occur in isolation. It exists within a broader context of systemic discrimination, colonial history and structural inequities in our institutions. Witnesses before committees spoke about the power imbalance between patients and medical professionals. They spoke about language barriers, cultural barriers and geographic isolation, particularly for indigenous women travelling from remote communities to access health care. They spoke about the fear of child welfare systems and the long history of state intervention in indigenous families. They also spoke about the erosion of trust.

When individuals feel powerless within a system, when they feel they cannot question authority, when they feel they must comply in order to receive care, the conditions for coercion are created.

While indigenous women have been disproportionately affected. It is important to recognize that the issue extends way beyond one individual group. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenics policies. Today, other vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, racialized individuals, intersex persons and those facing systemic barriers, may also be at risk when consent is not properly obtained. At its core, this is not solely a women's issue. It is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental right of every person and their bodily autonomy.

Parliament has studied the issue very carefully. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights conducted multiple studies. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs has heard from survivors and experts, and it reached a clear conclusion: Forced and coerced sterilization is ongoing and is under-reported, and it requires legislative action.

The committee's first recommendation was that legislation be introduced specifically to address the issue in the Criminal Code, and Bill S-228 is that response. This bill builds on the work of Senator Yvonne Boyer, who has been a tireless advocate on the issue. Its predecessor, Bill S-250, was studied extensively, refined and passed unanimously in the Senate before it died on the Order Paper. Bill S-228 contains that same carefully developed framework. It has passed in the Senate and is here in the House of Commons. It has already received strong, all-party support and was expedited through committee consideration. That level of consensus speaks volumes.

What would the legislation do? It is focused and precise. Bill S-228 would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization procedure without a person's valid consent constitutes aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. It would not create a new offence. It would clarify the application of existing law. It would ensure that sterilization without consent is recognized as conduct that causes serious and permanent harm.

The legislation is meant to offer clarity to this issue, because that is essential. While existing assault provisions may technically apply, they have never been used to prosecute forced sterilization in Canada. Survivors have told us that the absence of clear legal recognition has contributed to silence, confusion and the lack of accountability. The bill would address that gap.

It is equally important to be clear about what the bill would not do. It would not restrict voluntary sterilization. It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not affect gender-affirming care. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency interventions. Existing Criminal Code protections would remain in place, including those that protect physicians acting to preserve a patient's life or health.

The consent framework would remain unchanged. Consent is not valid where it is obtained through force, threats, fraud, duress or the abuse of authority. Bill S-228 would not alter those principles. It would actually reinforce them.

There has been thoughtful discussion about whether criminal law is the appropriate tool to address this issue. It is true that legislation alone cannot solve every aspect of the problem, but ending forced and coerced sterilization would also require improvements in medical training, stronger consent practices and continued engagement with communities and survivors. However, clarity in the law matters. Criminal law sets boundaries. It signals what conduct is acceptable and provides a mechanism for accountability. Without that clarity, enforcement becomes uncertain, and without accountability, trust cannot be restored.

Trust is central to this issue. The relationship between a patient and a medical professional is built on trust. When that trust is broken, the consequences extend far beyond a single incident. People lose confidence in the health care system, they delay care and they avoid seeking help altogether, and the impacts on health outcomes are significant. Rebuilding that trust requires attention.

The legislation is also a step forward toward reconciliation. Forced and coerced sterilization must be understood within a broader context of policies that have sought to control indigenous lives, families and communities. Reconciliation requires more than acknowledgement. It requires action. It requires structural change and requires ensuring that such harms do not continue. Bill S-228 is a step in that direction.

Before I conclude, I would like to again recognize the individuals whose courage has brought us to this point. The legislation exists because survivors spoke out and shared their stories. They relived painful experiences so others would not have to, and they asked Parliament to act. We must honour that courage. At third reading, the questions before us are clear. Will we ensure that Canada's criminal law reflects the seriousness of the violation? Will we affirm that sterilization without consent is not a misunderstanding or an oversight but a grave breach of human rights? Will we act to protect future generations?

Bill S-228 would affirm a fundamental principle: No one's reproductive future can be taken from them without their free, prior and informed consent; no one's body can be permanently altered through coercion or pressure; and no one's dignity is negotiable. The evidence is clear. The need is urgent. Survivors have waited long enough, and I encourage all members of the House to support Bill S-228 at third reading. Let us act decisively, let us act responsibly and let us ensure that this injustice has no place in Canada now or ever again.

[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.

[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.

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

moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures.

Before I begin remarks, I want to recognize one of the most important aspects of this bill: how it was developed. This is survivor-centred, indigenous-led legislation. This legislation exists because survivors had the courage to speak when silence might have been easier. I want to recognize and thank those who came forward, shared their truths and stood not only for themselves but for so many others.

As I read the names, I ask for leniency if I mispronounce any: Jackie Kistabish, Algonquin, from Val-d'Or, Quebec; Kahsenniyo Kick, Mohawk, from Six Nations, Ontario; Sylvia Nepinak, Anishnawbek, from Minegoziibe first nation, Manitoba; Sylvia McKay, Cree, from Peepeekisis, Saskatchewan; Heather Bear, Cree, Saskatchewan; Germaine Henry, Cree, from Chacachas, Saskatchewan; Chasity Kyplain, Cree, from Yellow Quill, Saskatchewan; Nicole Rabbit, Kainai Blood Tribe and Blackfoot, from Treaty 7, Alberta; Lois Cardinal, Cree, from Saddle Lake, Alberta; Nilak Ironhawk-Tommy, Inuit, from Cowichan, British Columbia; Susan Anderson, Métis, from Region 6; and so many more. Their strength, leadership and willingness to relive painful experiences have made this moment possible, and because of them, Parliament will hopefully act.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, and to the staff, volunteers and supporters whose tireless advocacy has ensured that survivors' voices are heard and respected and that their calls for justice could no longer be ignored.

They are not alone. People First of Canada and Inclusion Canada, formerly the Canadian Association for Community Living, are two other organizations that are standing up for persons with intellectual disabilities, like Roy Skoreyko, a People First self-advocate and member of the Inclusion Canada board, who was also sterilized at an institution at the age of 16 and who now continues to advocate for other survivors.

This legislation addresses a profound injustice, one that Canadians assume belongs to a distant past, but it does not. Forced and coerced sterilization is not historical. It is not theoretical. It is happening in Canada today, and that is why Parliament must act.

Bill S-228 builds on earlier legislation first introduced by Yvonne Boyer in the Senate as Bill S-250. Its purpose is clear: to strengthen the Criminal Code so that forced or coerced sterilization is explicitly recognized within the law as a serious form of aggravated assault. The bill would create a legislative framework that acknowledges this practice as part of Canada's broader legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism, which has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities.

This issue has also been recognized at the national level. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls documented the history of forced sterilization as a tool used to control and diminish indigenous populations with lasting and intergenerational impacts.

For decades, Canada has carried the painful legacies of eugenics and reproductive control. Beginning in the 1920s, sterilization policies emerged across the country, targeting those deemed unfit. These practices were formalized in provincial law in Alberta and British Columbia until their repeal in 1970. However, the repeal of those laws did not end the mindset that made them possible.

The practice persisted after formal eugenics policies ended and continues to be reported today. Media reports in 2015 prompted an external review in Saskatoon, which confirmed that indigenous women had been subjected to coerced sterilization and called for reparations, cultural safety measures and legal reform. That review helped bring national and international attention to the issue and contributed to multiple ongoing class action lawsuits.

Survivors continue to report being pressured, misled, threatened and sterilized without full and informed consent, often during the most vulnerable moments of their lives: during labour, immediately after childbirth or while under medication and distress. Some were told their babies might be taken away if they refused. Others were told the procedure was reversible, but it was clearly not. Some did not understand the forms they were asked to sign, and some of them were never told at all. This is not informed consent. Consent obtained through pressure, fear, misinformation or exhaustion is not consent. It is coercion.

The consequences of forced sterilization extend beyond physical harm. Survivors describe lifelong grief, trauma, the loss of identity and a profound sense of violation. For indigenous women, the harm is even deeper. In many indigenous world views the ability to bring children into the world is not only personal but also cultural, spiritual and connected to the survival and continuity of community.

This issue does not affect indigenous women alone. The committee has heard evidence that other groups were also at heightened risk levels, such as women with disabilities, women living with HIV and institutionalized persons, among so many others. In each case, multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination increase vulnerability to reproductive rights violations. Preventing a woman from having children without her consent is not simply a medical violation. It is an assault on dignity, autonomy and self-determination. It disrupts families. It fractures the trust in the health care system, and its effects echo across generations.

Forced and coerced sterilization does not occur in isolation. It is rooted in systemic racism, colonial assumptions and harmful stereotypes such as the belief that some women are unfit to be mothers, that some lives are less valued or that some communities should be controlled rather than supported.

While much of the testimony and evidence we have heard focuses on the experiences of women, particularly indigenous women, it is important to recognize that this issue is not confined to one gender. Sterilization procedures affect people of all sexes, and the principle at stake is universal. Every person has the right to bodily autonomy and to make free and informed decisions about their reproductive future. Historically, men and boys were also subjected to sterilization under eugenic policies, and today individuals across diverse communities, including intersex persons and others facing medical vulnerability, may be at risk when power imbalances and inadequate consent policies exist.

At its core, this is not just a women's-only issue. It is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental right of every person in Canada to control their own body, free from pressure, coercion or discrimination. When survivors speak of being judged, dismissed or pressured by authority figures, they are describing not individual failures but systemic ones, and when people lose trust in the health care system, the consequences extend far beyond reproductive health. Care is delayed, services are avoided and health care outcomes worsen.

The bill is therefore not only about criminal law but about rebuilding trust. Some have asked why new legislation is necessary. Do existing criminal code provisions not already cover assault? Technically, they might, but in practice, they have not. Despite years of reports and testimony, the Standing Committee on Human Resources found that forced and coerced sterilization is continuing today and is both under-reported and underestimated. The committee also found that these practices disproportionately affect indigenous women, women with disabilities and racialized women, and the list goes on, including institutionalized persons. The problem is not simply the absence of law; it is the absence of clarity.

When the Criminal Code does not explicitly name a harm, enforcement becomes uncertain and investigations unfortunately stall. Prosecutors hesitate and survivors lose confidence that the system will take their experiences seriously. This bill, Bill S-228, would make it explicit, for greater certainty, that performing a sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under section 268. It would not create a new offence, but would strengthen the application of the existing law. It would send a clear message that the conduct is criminal, serious and unacceptable.

The legislation would also clarify the legal consequences. Anyone who performs or participates in coercive actions to cause a sterilization without consent would be guilty of an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison. At the same time, the bill would establish clear safeguards to protect patient autonomy and ensure ethical medical practices.

Let me also address a concern that has been raised. Bill S-228 would not restrict access to voluntary sterilization. It would not interfere with reproductive choice. It would not criminalize legitimate medical practice or emergency care performed in good faith.

Where sterilization is requested, medical practitioners must ensure that consent is truly informed, truly voluntary and free from external pressure. Patients must be informed of alternative contraception options, must understand that consent can be withdrawn at any time and must be given a final opportunity to withdraw immediately before the procedure. Consent would also be deemed invalid if the individual is under 18, incapable of consenting or has not initiated a voluntary request. The bill targets only one thing, sterilization without consent, nothing more and nothing less.

Survivors asked for criminalization. They testified before Senate committees. They shared their stories, often at great personal cost, so that this practice could be recognized and stopped. The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights studied the issue. Its first recommendation was clear that legislation should be introduced to prohibit forced and coerced sterilization. Bill S-228 is Parliament's response to that recommendation.

When survivors tell us what justice requires, it is our responsibility to listen and to act. Some have suggested that education and policy reform alone would be sufficient. Yes, education, cultural safety and health system reform are essential, but education without accountability does not prevent abuse.

Clear legal consequences matter for three reasons. The first is deterrence. Providers and institutions know there are serious consequences for violating consent. The second is accountability. When harm occurs, there is a clear legal pathway to investigate and prosecute. The third is recognition. Survivors see that the law acknowledges what happened to them as a serious violation of their rights, and for many survivors that recognition matters deeply. It tells them that their voices were heard, that what happened to them was wrong and that they will not be ignored.

Passing Bill S-228 will not undo the harms of the past, but it is a concrete step forward to ensuring that such harm does not continue. Reconciliation requires accountability and action. This bill I feel is both.

The urgency of this legislation could not be overstated. Cases have been reported as recently as this year. Every day that passes without clear legal protection is another day when someone could face pressure, coercion or violation at one of the most vulnerable times of their life. This is not an abstract policy debate or about whether a woman leaving a hospital will still have the reproductive future she chooses for herself, but about whether our health care system can protect someone's autonomy or override it.

I understand my time is coming to an end, so I ask members to understand that Bill S-228 would affirm that no one's reproductive future can be taken from them without consent. Forced and coerced sterilization is one of the most serious violations of bodily autonomy and human dignity. It is time to act, and we should do it now.

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

moved that Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce Bill S-228, seconded by the member for Lethbridge. This legislation is identical to amended Bill S-250, which the Senate unanimously endorsed and sent to the House of Commons in October 2024.

Bill S-228 directly confronts the abhorrent and ongoing reality of the forced and coerced sterilization of women, indigenous women and other marginalized individuals in Canada. By making it explicit in the Criminal Code that performing sterilization without consent constitutes aggravated assault under subsection 268(1), we would send a clear message that such acts will not be tolerated in our society.

I want to express my deepest gratitude to Senator Boyer, whose vision and leadership have been instrumental in shaping the bill, along with Senator Wells. Most importantly, I honour the survivors. Some of them are with us in Ottawa today, specifically from the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Combined, their courage, resilience and unwavering advocacy have brought this issue to the forefront.

Without their voices and determination, this legislation would not be before us today. Let us allow this opportunity to get the bill passed. Now is the time to act to protect the vulnerable, uphold justice and ensure that such violations never happen again in Canada.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to sterilization procedures.