Debates of May 4th, 2026

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay before the House, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, additional 2026 reports of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record with respect to such an important issue. I would like to highlight in my question and comment the bravery and the courage this would have taken for survivors, individuals who have gone through this experience and who have continued to raise the profile of the issue to such a degree that we actually have legislation before us now that I anticipate will pass, at the very latest, after the second hour of debate. Could the member provide his thoughts in terms of recognizing those outstanding individual Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government for supporting this piece of legislation, and not only this piece of legislation, Bill S-228, but also the previous version that was lost when Parliament prorogued during the last Parliament, which is now coming up on a year ago.

Yes, survivors' speaking about this was something that meant reliving a lot of trauma for a lot of people. It was not easy in a lot of circumstances for the witnesses, the survivors, to come forward to speak about it openly and on camera. It was very difficult for them. However, they drew on that courage and wanted to ensure that future generations were not impacted by this. They wanted to ensure that there is a correction here. This shows the importance of the topic, and it speaks to the courage of survivors.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for his concern, which we can feel, and for his commitment to this issue. These are deeply troubling issues that are difficult to address, but I think that he is doing so with great dignity. The fact that the bill is now at third reading is also a testament to his strong leadership.

We just quickly completed report stage, but I think it is important to talk about the testimony that we heard from victims in committee. For example, Nicole Rabbit was scheduled for a C-section at the University of Saskatoon on September 11, 2001. We are talking about something that happened less than 30 years ago. She said: I trusted the medical team but knew something wasn't right when I smelled the burning flesh. These were strangers who I had no previous encounters with who insisted I tie my tubes. The medical team took advantage of me in a vulnerable state....No one asked me what I wanted. No one explained to me why I apparently needed this done, and I didn't sign any forms. I still have no real idea what the options were and why they said it was best for them to sterilize me. I know now that the sterilization can't be reversed.

My colleague talked about reconciliation and systemic issues. I would like to hear his thoughts on what we can do to ensure real reconciliation.

[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.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on this file and on the importance of bringing this issue forward. What we know is that the individuals were not always believed. Luckily, society is advancing, but there has just been a case in Ontario where 48 women came forward, and the judge had no problem suggesting that there was no credibility to any of their testimony. I would like to hear the member's comments on the work we need to do on how we ensure that survivors are believed, and that when they come forward, they receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is something we heard during testimony during the committee process. Many times, the victims did not know what was happening to them. The survivors were not sure what the procedure meant.

This legislation would be a way to correct that wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to briefly make mention of the significance of tomorrow, which is Red Dress Day. Across our great nation, individuals will be recognizing the tragedy that occurred with the murdered and missing women. For me, it is important not only to highlight it but also to recognize that even today we still see young girls and women, particularly from the indigenous community, who continue to go missing and be murdered. We have to be diligent and support indigenous leadership, like my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, who has a beautiful red broach on, I noticed, in recognition of tomorrow's special day.

The legislation we are talking about for private members' hour is about a form of discrimination, in many ways, that took place here in Canada. Not very many people are aware of the type of discrimination I am referring to. We are dealing with the issue of sterilization. Many women, we are talking about hundreds, were coerced or forced in one way or another and convinced that the sterilization was absolutely essential. It came at a substantial cost, and I am not talking about money. I am talking about human rights. It is quite unfortunate that it took so long for us to recognize, as a nation, that it was being done in some provinces.

In Canada, there is a joint responsibility related to many different portfolios, jurisdictional responsibilities between Ottawa and the different provinces. We had some provinces that had a law that supported forcing women, in essence, through coercion and other ways, to be sterilized. B.C. was one, and there were others. That is a very serious violation of human rights. At the core of the issue, it is about trust.

The question I posed to my colleague across the way was to recognize the terror and horror that an individual would have experienced as a survivor. I suspect we would find that many of the women who were put through this tragedy had no sense of what was being done to their bodies, to then find out at a later point that they were sterilized. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to address the emotions and the fact that they were not able to have a child. Often individuals were completely misled to believe that they could change it in the future. Some people today still think sterilization is something that can be reversed a few years later, which is not the case.

It was particularly devastating to some communities more than others. Indigenous people were targeted, if not intentionally, but I would suggest that it was intentionally by many, to have sterilization. It was the same thing for people with disabilities, where the line was crossed.

It is an issue of trust. When we seek assistance or advice, we have faith in the people in our institutions, that they are going to take a balanced approach in providing advice that is based on medical conditions, some social factors, no doubt, and other considerations. We have faith that ultimately was displaced. There was another agenda being served, over and above the interests of the woman who was having to make a difficult decision or, in many ways, on whose behalf a decision was made. One can only appreciate how it is that someone's human rights, very basic ones, were violated in a situation like that.

Coerced sterilization is a serious violation of bodily autonomy. Whether one likes it or not, the bottom line is the realization that it is a woman's right to decide. We as a society need to support that in every way.

The legislation before us, Bill S-228, is not the first time we have attempted to get this through, but I believe that now, given the current political situation and having it at the third reading, we are talking about another hour or hour and a half's debate before its ultimate passage. With the support that the legislation has received from the Senate and members of Parliament, current and past, there is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will not only pass but receive royal assent. That is a good thing. It has taken a long time. As has been pointed out, these sterilization policies were enacted generations ago, probably 60 or 70 years ago.

At the end of the day, the House of Commons is providing clarity on an important issue. The only reason the House is recognizing this is that survivors have had the courage and bravery to continue to talk about it.

I remember in the Manitoba legislature, years ago, when I was first made aware of the issue. There were even issues being raised back then in regard to sterilization and crossing the line between what is advice and consent versus coercion, and it still happens today.

It is because of those brave and courageous women from the past who had to live through that experience and then continue to share their experiences that the public and parliamentarians at all levels have become enlightened about the issue, which ultimately has led to the legislation we have before us.

Survivors, particularly indigenous women, have been clear about the harm caused by forced or coerced sterilization. They are the ones I would like to recognize in particular and thank for their persistence on the issue. They are the reason the legislation will be passed, as well as indigenous leadership, individuals within the disability communities and others, human rights advocates who have seen the violation that has taken place and recognized it for what it is: a lack of consent, disinformation and discrimination.

It is important that we recognize all these negative things that have taken place. It is also important to recognize the many different forms and to be diligent so that it does not continue to take place.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out something that is not directly related to today's topic but that still concerns an issue that affects it, although indirectly. I am wearing a red dress pin because tomorrow, May 5, we commemorate Red Dress Day. It is a time to remember missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

There are some topics that are hard to talk about in the House. Allow me to establish a link. Following my election in 2019, Senator Miville‑Dechêne reached out to me and told me about an all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I was surprised that human trafficking and modern slavery still existed in 2019. Perhaps I was naive and living with my head in the clouds. Today, in 2026, I cannot believe I am forced to rise to speak to a bill about forced sterilization. Some of these topics are very sensitive and hard to discuss.

I will address this one by invoking a fundamental principle: the right to control one's own body. This right is at the heart of any free and democratic society. Let us be clear: Forced sterilization is a human rights violation. It is an irreversible violation and a form of institutional violence. This is not a theoretical debate. In 2026, it is still a reality that, unfortunately, has not yet been eradicated.

Behind this bill are women who were deprived of the choice to bring a child into the world. It is unspeakably cruel. As the mother of a four-year-old girl, I have to say this is a very difficult subject. It is not a simple issue. It is a reality that is part of a very dark chapter of our history.

This is, of course, a historical legacy of colonialism. I will share some statistics. Between 1966 and 1976, there were 1,200 sterilizations, 1,150 of which were performed on indigenous women. Clearly, they are overrepresented. In Alberta, 74% of the women who were sterilized were indigenous. This reflects a legacy of eugenics and colonial policies.

There were 580 documented cases between 1970 and 1975. These practices were intended to control certain groups that were deemed “undesirable”. This is systemic racism, and it leads to health inequalities. Contrary to what we might think, this is an issue that is still timely today, as I mentioned in my introduction.

There have been some class-action lawsuits. Over 100 women filed suit in Saskatchewan, and another five lawsuits have been filed across Canada and beyond its borders. In Quebec, 22 cases have been documented, 30 Atikamekw women have filed a lawsuit and testimony has recently been heard in 35 cases.

Let us talk about the issue of consent. These women are often asked for consent when they are in pain and in a vulnerable position. They are often pressured to make a decision. It is reasonable to wonder whether consent is valid when it is obtained from a person in a vulnerable position. This is not something that happened way back in the past. There are still cases before the courts today.

Why do we need to legislate? This constitutes assault, which is already an offence. However, it is difficult to clearly define the act, to take legal action. It is very difficult to punish something that is not clearly defined. That is how we see it. I would like to make a comparison. Sexual assault needs to be explicitly defined. That takes political will, but this legislative change must be made so that it is perfectly clear to institutions that there will be zero tolerance. This right needs to be explicitly stated to better protect these women.

We need to clarify that sterilization is mutilation, a form of aggravated assault. It is defined as any procedure that prevents reproduction. We need to ensure that there is free and informed prior consent. Yes, the purpose criterion protects necessary medical procedures. Of course, we are talking about protecting physicians, but the consent must be valid to exclude any criminal liability. Emergencies are also covered by section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill protects patients without penalizing professionals who are acting in good faith. That is what we want to do here.

To respond to criticism about criminalizing doctors, I would say that this is a clear law that also protects practitioners. We encourage enhanced consent protocols. The same logic applies to medical assistance in dying or caring for the incapacitated. Above all, we want to avoid a legal vacuum. There are reports that show the current recourse system has failed. Right now, this is a theoretical right with no actual enforcement, which does not really constitute protection.

On top of that, there is the stigma of silence. There is a stigma attached to this. There is also a lack of recognition. It is a taboo subject that no one talks about. By naming it, we are recognizing it, and by recognizing it, we are ultimately protecting these women so that they can continue to make their own decisions about their bodies.

There is are very systemic and social aspect, which is that the groups affected by this issue are indigenous women, racialized women and persons with disabilities. This violence is rooted in power imbalances, as I mentioned earlier. The truly tragic thing about this is that there are many consequences. We are talking about trauma and loss of trust, but also an intergenerational impact. It is not just an attack on a person's body; it is an attack on their entire life. Taking away a woman's ability to give birth is an attack on her right to choose whether to do so. This assault lasts a lifetime for a woman, who will later experience the psychological and physical scars of it all, because there will be scars, many of them.

The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, with certain reservations, of course. We want it to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care.

As Bloc Québécois members have repeatedly said, the involvement of indigenous nations is a must. Nation-to-nation discussions are consistent with our vision, and we naturally want indigenous nations to be involved going forward.

We also want to remind members that we will always reject any attempts at federal overcentralization. We will have to keep an eye out, because we see that this federal regime is yet another in a constant stream of attempts to overcentralize. The rights of these indigenous women and girls must be protected while respecting jurisdictions.

Obviously, a law alone is not enough. Professionals also have to be trained. A monitoring and cultural adaptation mechanism also needs to be implemented. We could take inspiration from the Collège des médecins du Québec, whose initiatives promote collaboration and take a co-operative approach. As we have been saying, despite some criticism, this bill does seek to protect physicians. I think physicians want to collaborate on this issue, and we applaud their initiatives considering that the law must be translated into practice. It will take awareness campaigns to make that happen.

We must eliminate the stigma and taboo surrounding forced sterilization, which is indeed still happening. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, talked about this a little earlier in his question. He used to serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I know he took an interest in this issue. He shared the very real case of a woman who was subjected to this and described the pain and the wounds, both psychological and physical, that she suffered as a result of forced sterilization.

In closing, these women have been ignored and silenced. We cannot forget the victims who have suffered as a result of this atrocity. As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take action today. By supporting this bill, we can appeal for justice, dignity and recognition.

As a final point, I want to say that this bill is a step toward making amends, but, above all, it is a commitment to never tolerate this unacceptable act again. We are hearing more and more about the need for reconciliation lately, and I believe this bill aligns perfectly with that objective. As elected officials, we must set partisanship aside and move forward for the sake of victims.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who gave up his time today so we could debate this very important issue.

Forced sterilization is a clear violation of human dignity. It is not simply a failure of policy by a nation. It is not a mere error in judgment. It is an assertion of control over someone else's ability to procreate in the future. When we examine the history of this country, we have to be honest about systemic violations of this nature and recognize that these violations, as they relate to indigenous people, have not occurred in isolation. They exist within a broader and deeper troubling pattern, a pattern of dehumanization of indigenous women.

The international community has already recognized the importance of informed consent, and so I want to highlight that principle and how it relates to what we are speaking about today in the House. In the aftermath of the Second World War, during the Nuremberg trials, the world was forced to reckon with medical experimentation carried out on human beings without their agreement or consent.

Out of that reckoning came the Nuremberg Code, which established a principle that has long shaped modern medical ethics. This code recognized that the voluntary and informed consent of an individual is essential. This principle is not just theoretical in nature. It was drawn from real abuses in the international era, where human beings were treated as objects rather than as persons. It established a boundary that no government, no institution and no professional should ever cross, yet we are here today debating a very similar issue, even after standards were set.

We must confront the reality that similar violations occurred within our very country. In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government, through the then department of Indian affairs and in collaboration with leading researchers, conducted a series of nutritional experiments on indigenous children in residential schools. These studies were overseen in part by a doctor, the superintendent of Indian affairs, medical services and prominent pediatricians known for developing infant nutritional products.

I raise this issue to show that forced sterilization is not in isolation from policies that have been advanced in this nation and so we can understand the seriousness of having to legislate against such issues and natures of experiment.

These nutritional experiments were not designed to heal. They were designed to observe, and the observation of these indigenous children was done almost as would be done in experiments watching lab rats. I hate to use that analogy, but this is what was done within our very country. These children were among the most vulnerable, at the time. They were already removed from their families and in residential schools. They were deliberately studied to see how children would react to malnutrition.

In these starvation human experiments, essential nutrients were withheld from these precious, innocent children. In some cases, schools were divided into test groups versus control groups. Critical dental care was also intentionally denied, not because it was unavailable, but because researchers wanted to see how this study of nutritional deficiency would impact dental disease over time. These were not isolated oversights. These experiments were organized and documented and funded by the Canadian government.

Historical records later brought this to light through archival research by scholars. It was shown that officials were aware of the conditions, and yet they still proceeded nonetheless. There was no meaningful consent. Just like we see with the sterilization cases, parents were not informed and children were not given a voice. They were not treated as individuals. They were treated as if they lacked inherent dignity and were subject to experimentation. This is not simply a tragedy in the chapter of our past. It reveals a pattern in which indigenous people were treated as objects of policy rather than as human beings deserving of care, protection and the same respect that all Canadians receive.

That same pattern is reflected in the history of forced and coerced sterilization in Canada. For decades, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia operated under this eugenics legislation. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta authorized sterilization of thousands of individuals, many without full understanding and meaningful consent. Those disproportionately targeted included indigenous women, girls and marginalized populations. Even after those laws were repealed, the practice did not end.

In recent years, indigenous women have come forth with accounts of being sterilized without full and informed consent. Some were approached during childbirth at moments of extreme vulnerability. Some were pressured into signing forms that they did not fully understand, often at their most vulnerable moment. Others reported that procedures were performed without their knowledge. This is not health care. It is not care at all. It is control over a woman's ability to decide in the future that she may want children. Under Canadian law, it constitutes bodily harm.

In any other context, we would recognize this as an aggravated assault. We must understand that this issue sits within the broader systemic context. We heard about this context in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. That inquiry concluded that violence against indigenous women was not random. It was systemic and rooted in generational marginalization, dispossession and erosion of dignity. Forced sterilization must be understood within this continuum. It reflects a history in which decisions about indigenous women's bodies were made by others and without respect for their autonomy, dignity and humanity.

Bill S-228 is necessary. It would affirm clearly that forced and coerced sterilization is a criminal act. It would reinforce that non-consensual sterilization meets the threshold of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code and draws a clear line that no authority, medical institution or government has the right to override when a person can decide to have a child in the future.

If we are to move forward with dignity, we must confront history fully. We must recognize that policies, once justified under the language of progress, caused real and lasting harm. We must ensure that our laws reflect a different standard rooted in dignity. This bill is a step toward that standard, and for that reason, it deserves to be supported.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S-228, following its careful study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

At the outset, I want to recognize the important work of the committee. Members heard from 19 witnesses, including advocacy groups, indigenous leaders and legal experts. Their testimony was powerful, grounded in lived experience and essential in ensuring that this legislation reflects the realities of those most affected and the seriousness of the harm we are addressing. Their work has reinforced the urgency of the bill's adoption.

Bill S-228 addresses a reality that is both deeply troubling and unfortunately ongoing: the forced and coerced sterilization of indigenous and racialized women, girls and 2SLGBTQI persons in Canada. Survivors have come forward with accounts of being subjected to sterilization procedures without their free and informed consent, sometimes through coercion, sometimes through misinformation, and often at moments of profound vulnerability, including during childbirth or institutional care.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader legacy of systemic discrimination rooted in colonialism, racism and deeply gendered assumptions about who is deemed fit to have children.

While some may be tempted to view this as a historical injustice, confined to another era, the evidence heard at committee makes it clear that this harm has not been relegated to the past. It persists. That is why this bill matters.

At its core, Bill S-228 is a clarifying measure, but it is no less significant for that reason. It makes explicit what is already implicit in our criminal law: that sterilization procedures carried out without valid consent constitute aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is the most serious form of assault under the Criminal Code. It applies when a person is wounded, maimed or disfigured, or when their life is endangered. Because sterilization procedures inherently involve the alteration of the human body in a permanent and profound way, they fall squarely within this framework when performed without consent.

This bill would remove any ambiguity. It would send a clear and unequivocal message: Non-consensual sterilization is not merely inappropriate; it is not merely unethical; it is criminal, and it is among the most serious forms of violence recognized by our law.

This bill would not create a new offence. It would not alter the law of consent, and it would not interfere with legitimate medical practice. That distinction is critical. Canada's legal framework already requires that consent be free, informed and given by a person with the capacity to understand the nature and consequence of the medical procedure. Consent obtained through coercion, manipulation or abuse of authority is not valid consent.

Bill S-228 would simply clarify how these well-established principles apply in the context of sterilization procedures. It would preserve the right of individuals to make their own reproductive choices, including the choice to undergo sterilization. What it protects is the integrity of that choice.

The committee's study also underscored an important reality: Despite existing legal protections, no criminal charges have been laid in Canada in cases involving alleged coerced sterilization. That fact alone raises serious concerns about clarity, accountability and, perhaps more importantly, trust. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the absence of legal consequences has contributed to a profound erosion of trust in institutions, such as the health care system, law enforcement and the justice system itself.

Bill S-228 is not a complete solution to that broader challenge, but it is an important step. It would provide clarity to police, prosecutors and courts. It would reinforce the seriousness of the offence, and it would signal to survivors that Parliament has heard them.

We must recognize that the harm caused by non-consensual sterilization extends far beyond the physical. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. It is an infringement on reproductive rights, and for indigenous communities, it carries deep cultural and intergenerational consequences.

The ability to have children is not only a personal matter. It is tied to identity, family and the continuity of community. To deprive someone of that ability without their consent is to inflict harm that reverberates across generations. That is why this bill is also consistent with Canada's broader commitments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the national action plan to end gender-based violence.

Bill S-228 reflects a commitment to address systemic discrimination and to take concrete steps to prevent this harm from occurring in the future.

I want to highlight the collaborative nature of this legislation. This bill was introduced in the Senate. I also want to highlight the important work done by members of this place. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, right now in Ottawa, leaders, survivors, families and frontline workers are gathering for the third national summit on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people. They are coming together under a powerful theme: “from principles to policy, from resolution to action.”

Tomorrow, May 5, is Red Dress Day. Across this country, we are going to see red dresses in windows, in trees and on Parliament Hill, each one representing a life that was taken, a voice that was silenced or a family that was forever changed. This is not symbolic alone; it is a call to action. The violence that indigenous women face is not random; it is systemic. It is rooted in policies, institutions and decisions, both past and present.

That is why I want to speak to Bill S-228. Bill S-228 is a Criminal Code amendment that makes something unmistakably clear: that forced and coerced sterilization is a crime. It defines sterilization without consent as an act that wounds or maims, making it prosecutable as aggravated assault.

Let us be clear about what that means. It means that what happened to indigenous women in hospitals and medical systems, often without their full, informed consent, is not just unethical. It is violence, and not historical violence. Reports have confirmed that forced and coerced sterilization has continued into modern times within our own health care system. When we talk about MMIWG, we must understand that it is all connected.

The national inquiry called the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls a genocide, not because of one issue but because of a pattern, a system that has, for generations, devalued indigenous women's lives, controlled indigenous women's bodies and failed to protect indigenous women.

I wholeheartedly support Bill S-228, and I thank members for bringing it forward to the House.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of utilizing our time correctly, in talking about the importance of Bill S-228, I want to build on what my colleague was talking about: the importance of making sure that women across Canada have the opportunity to be consulted when they need to make decisions about family planning. Obviously, this issue has affected women in Canada, indigenous women disproportionately, and Black women.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about the fact that tomorrow is Red Dress Day, an important day for indigenous women, when we remember the missing and murdered indigenous women across Canada. This is an opportunity for everyone in Canada to be aware of the issues that disproportionately affect indigenous women—

[An hon. member]

And people with disabilities.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

—as well as people with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for making sure that important comment was made.

Sterilization disproportionately affects marginalized women, women who people think no one is going to look for, women who did not have the support system—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30‑minute question period.

Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. Members should keep their interventions brief, and they may speak more than once.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting to see the government actually using closure to shut down debate on such a serious issue, sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is disgusting that it is taking away the voice of veterans, of people who are surviving military sexual trauma, and not listening to the amendments being brought forward on Bill C-11.

I do not know why the government is in a hurry on this. We brought it through committee in a relatively organized manner. We had cross-party support from the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP to make amendments based on the testimony we heard at committee, and now the government wants to ignore all that, shut down debate and use its sneaky majority to stifle democracy right here.

Why is the minister ignoring veterans and survivors of military sexual trauma and not making sure they have a choice in what justice system they want to use, whether it is the military justice system or the civilian system?