Bill S-228

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).

Criminal Code

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this very important issue to the House and making sure that he acknowledged those victims. I share with the member opposite the sense of urgency in getting this legislation through as quickly as possible. I have talked to Mi'kmaq people who have been impacted by this. They have asked that we move speedily to ensure we get this through.

The member and I have had good conversations at the INAN committee. He is a respected member of that committee. I am wondering if the member sees any value in potentially seeking unanimous consent so that we can move this to the indigenous and northern affairs committee to ensure that we get this done within the next few weeks, potentially months, for these survivors, so this never happens again.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are good friends on the INAN committee. To those survivors who may be in Ottawa today, I think this is welcome news. I do not think the member could see because he was looking this way, but by the looks on their faces, it meant a lot. I think that is a fantastic idea.

I want to thank every party in the Parliament. Every party has jumped on board to support the legislation. I welcome the member's offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for tabling this bill before the House. Does he agree that the full and active participation of organizations representing first nations is an essential condition and a fundamental prerequisite for any reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the Bloc side for, from what I hear, its support on the bill. Like I said, all parties have been deeply involved in this and have given it a lot of thought. The back and forth between all parties has been very respectful. I think we all agree that harm has been done in the past.

I agree with the member. There was intense consultation done across the country by the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, among others who reached out. It seems there is widespread agreement that the legislation is a good thing and needs to happen as quickly as possible.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I did run out of time. I had a lot more to say, but most of it was just to thank the members of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. They have been amazing to work with. The friendships I have gained, the people I have gotten to know, have been absolutely incredible. It is unfortunate the journey had some wrongs done in the past. I am glad they saw the strength in themselves to come forward and bring it into the public, to ensure that this does not happen to anyone ever again. I thank everyone who raised their voice, shared their stories and worked with us across the aisle.

Again, I thank the member for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, who is an indigenous person himself, although a member of the opposite party. I think his offer of unanimous consent would be an amazing way to get the bill moving as fast as possible through the parliamentary system.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the story of Louise Delisle.

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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