“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it clear in the Criminal Code that sterilizing someone without their consent is a serious crime.”

“moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: 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 While those laws were repealed by the 1970s, the attitudes that enabled them did not just simply disappear.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.”

“I support this bill to ban forced sterilization. Survivors showed great courage by sharing their stories so this does not happen to future generations.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want us to pass this bill now. We heard painful testimony in committee from people who were sterilized without their consent in recent years and can no longer have children.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We heard from victims in committee who did not know what was happening to them when they were sterilized. This bill helps fix that wrong.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill to make forced sterilization a crime. Canada has a long history of medical abuses against Indigenous people, including nutritional experiments on children and sterilizing women without their consent. Sterilizing someone without their permission is aggravated assault, and our laws must clearly ban it.”

“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.”