Criminal Code
Bill to Amend--Third Reading
October 8, 2024
Moved third reading of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), as amended.
She said: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional and unceded territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. The people of these nations are the original stewards of the land that we occupy today, and it is important in our land acknowledgements to show our humility, gratefulness and respect for their stewardship by acknowledging and thanking them. When we pay our respects to the ancestors, we reaffirm our relationships with one another. In doing so, we are actively participating in reconciliation as we navigate our work and time together.
I rise today as sponsor of Senate public Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), and to speak at third reading. This bill proposes to amend section 268 of the Criminal Code, which currently contains the aggravated assault offences. Bill S-250 adds a “for greater certainty” clause to explicitly state that “. . . a sterilization procedure . . .” constitutes “. . . an act that wounds or maims a person . . . .” It also includes a definition of “sterilization procedure” that states that it is a procedure “. . . that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction regardless of whether it’s reversible . . . .” Aggravated assault carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
As many senators will know and remember from my first speech nearly seven years ago, and subsequent speeches, eradicating forced and coerced sterilization has been a key focus of my professional life. As a reminder of why I am so passionate about this topic, it has to do with my aunt Lucy, whom I lived with and who told me bedtime stories of her 10 years in a tuberculosis sanatorium in Fort Qu’Appelle — Fort San to be exact. She talked of the monsters that walked the halls at night, the experiments on the children and not seeing her family for 10 years. I believe my aunt may have been sterilized at this time; she never had any children. I was her girl.
Years later, I worked as a nurse in central Alberta and Saskatchewan, areas that had large Indigenous populations. On more than one occasion through the years, I was told that the “Indian problem” would be fixed when all the Indian women were sterilized. People talked to me like that because they thought I was like them. I was not. These words drove me — on fire with rage and anger — to law school, where I believed that if I just became a lawyer, I could stop it from happening. That was over 40 years ago.
Today, in my speech, I will again highlight the importance of this bill and how forced sterilization is not simply an issue of the past, but rather one that is still ever-present in modern-day Canada. I will also touch on the important work the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee did in their study of Bill S-250.
I introduced Bill S-250 in June 2022 following two Senate studies on the issue of forced and coerced sterilization. Several Indigenous and Black women testified for the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights second report, The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II.
Criminalizing the act of forced and coerced sterilization was the first recommendation in The Scars that We Carry. The testimony of the nine women and the subsequent pleas to criminalize the act of forced sterilization moved me to introduce this important bill.
Over the years, I have had hundreds of encounters with Indigenous women who have been sterilized or have family who have been sterilized. I carry them all with me through this important work.
To give you just one example of how prevalent this issue is, I’d like to share with you a story from a few years ago when I was travelling in the West.
I was checking into a hotel late at night. I was by myself. I had my suitcase; I was rolling it in, and there was nobody other than the clerk behind the desk. I said, “I’m here to check in.” She said, “Oh, hello, senator. You’re the senator of sterilization.” I replied, “Well, that’s an area I work in. I do work on that,” and I was a bit flustered. She was a young woman. She looked at me, her eyes got really big and she started to cry. She blurted out, “They did it to me.” I was really taken aback by this because it felt as if she’d been holding it all in so she could tell me when I showed up. She cried:
They did it to me when I was 21, and I had four children. I’m now 35 and have a new partner. My kids are grown. I can’t get pregnant, and I can’t afford in vitro fertilization.
I was holding her, she was holding me and we were both crying.
At the second reading for Bill S-250 I noted, as have many of my colleagues who have spoken in support of the bill, that we have evidence of forced sterilization occurring as recently as December 2023. People ask me, “How can this still be happening?” I know Senator Wells mentioned this person, but I would like to elaborate on how this can and does happen. Meet Dr. Andrew Kotaska.
Andrew Kotaska is a doctor who might be seen as a role model for young doctors or a highly respected colleague. He has served as president of the Northwest Territories Medical Association. He spent years practising medicine and has had professorships at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Toronto, University of Manitoba and the UBC School of Population and Public Health. He has published articles on caring for Indigenous patients and — surprisingly — informed consent and ethics. Andrew Kotaska is a former clinical director of obstetrics at Stanton Territorial Hospital in Yellowknife. Andrew Kotaska might be emulated as a leader and a role model due to the successes of his career.
In July 2019, via a remote ultrasound, he diagnosed an ovarian cyst and decided that a 37-year-old Inuk woman needed surgery. In November 2021, he performed surgery to address a painful cyst on her right ovary at the Stanton Territorial Hospital in Yellowknife. She only consented to the removal of her right Fallopian tube and ovary if necessary. Andrew Kotaska removed her right Fallopian tube and right ovary and then brazenly stated out loud in the operating room, “Let’s see if I can find a reason to take the left tube.” And indeed he did. Andrew Kotaska removed not only her right ovary and Fallopian tube, but also her left ovary and Fallopian tube without consent, leaving her sterile forever.
A civil suit was launched in April 2021 against Kotaska and the Northwest Territories Health and Social Services Authority for $6.5 million. They both filed statements of defence, and Andrew Kotaska denied sterilizing her without consent. A year later, he publicly apologized. In his defence, he stated that his medical student heard the Inuk patient say she did not want any more children, seemingly implying that if an organ was not being used, it shouldn’t be a problem if he removed it — as if she didn’t need it anyway.
An official complaint was launched against Andrew Kotaska with the Northwest Territories Department of Health and Social Services, who license physicians in the Northwest Territories, and a virtual hearing was held on February 10 and 11, 2022. The board of inquiry found that he had violated the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities. They suspended his medical licence for five months, already served. He was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs related to the hearing, and he had to complete an ethics course at his own expense. The board considered a letter signed by his colleagues that described him as “an accomplished, thoughtful surgeon who is capable of excellent decision making” when making their recommendations.
Despite all this, Andrew Kotaska currently practises medicine in a hospital in the interior of British Columbia. He is fully registered with the Society for Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.
This is just one example of how action on Bill S-250 is desperately needed. It’s already extremely challenging for Indigenous women to access reproductive health care, particularly in northern and remote communities. When they do access this health care, there are some upstanding and highly qualified physicians who would like to put an end to Indigenous women needing such care by performing these sterilization procedures without appropriate consent.
On April 21, 2023, after the second-reading speeches, Bill S-250 was sent for study to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. In February and March 2024, the committee studied Bill S-250 and heard from a wide range of witnesses, including Nicole Rabbit, a survivor of forced sterilization and board member of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. The Canadian Medical Association, or CMA; the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; the First Nations Health Authority; Alisa Lombard, lead counsel for one of the class actions happening across the country; the National Council of Indigenous Midwives; the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund; and the Native Women’s Association of Canada all testified. Our committee also heard from officials from the Department of Justice and Indigenous Services Canada.
Speaking to our committee, survivor Nicole Rabbit, also known by her Blackfoot name Eagle Woman, urged the committee members to support this bill. She shared with us deeply moving testimony about her experiences and her family’s experience with forced sterilization. In Nicole’s family alone, herself, her mother and her niece have all been sterilized against their will. To conclude her testimony, she drew strength from her recently departed mother and said:
Someone has to be accountable for the act of genocide that we Indigenous people have faced and continue to face in regard to forced and coerced sterilization. We Indigenous people have always been poorly treated, and we would like it to stop and to stop systemic racism. Therefore, the recommended amendment must be stipulated in the Criminal Code. Our human rights continue to be violated to this day.
Hearing Nicole speak with such deep emotion moved all present in the room and highlighted the critical importance of acting on this issue by passing Bill S-250.
Doctor Kathleen Ross, President of the Canadian Medical Association, appeared before the committee and was fully in support of Bill S-250. She spoke to the importance of taking this issue seriously, but also touched on how amending the Criminal Code cannot be the only action taken. It must go further beyond just this bill. She said:
The Canadian Medical Association has strongly denounced the abhorrent acts of forced and coerced sterilization. That includes surgical procedures to permanently prevent conception, any method that alters the fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus or any other action that is taken with the primary purpose of stopping conception permanently. These practices are rooted in deep systemic racism and discrimination. They have inflicted, as the committee has heard, irreversible harm on predominantly Indigenous women and perpetuated cycles of inequity and injustice. This dark legacy of sterilization under coercion is woven into the fabric of our country’s history . . . .
Therefore, we meet today — the medical profession and members of the government — to address this inequity — this injustice.
However, while the overwhelming tone of the committee meetings was supportive of the intent of Bill S-250, and all those who spoke with the committee agreed that this practice must be stopped once and for all, during these meetings concerns were raised by witnesses and senators on the committee that the original drafting of Bill S-250 was overcomplicated and that it might have unintended consequences, especially in cases of emergency surgeries or medical procedures resulting in sterilization.
After hearing these concerns, I consulted with the Minister of Justice and his advisors, and we developed an amendment that significantly simplifies the bill while maintaining the core goal: to make it explicitly clear in the Criminal Code that forced sterilization, meeting the requirements of an aggravated assault, is against the law and will be prosecuted. The resulting amendment, which was supported unanimously by the committee, greatly simplified Bill S-250, bringing the bill from 55 lines down to 14 lines.
The amended bill makes it clear that medical providers who inadvertently or through a manifestation of a disclosed risk, where possible, sterilize someone during an emergency surgery are protected by section 45 of the Criminal Code, and it is clearly targeting sterilization without consent, so it will not impact reproductive freedoms for those who wish to be sterilized voluntarily.
Prior to clause-by-clause consideration where I moved this amendment, the committee heard from criminal law experts at the Department of Justice who were fully supportive of this change and re-emphasized to the committee how this will achieve the objectives that Bill S-250 originally set out to achieve while avoiding the potential complications and concerns that were raised earlier in the committee process.
Canada has perpetrated many wrongs against Indigenous women; forced sterilization is one of them. Forced sterilization has been performed, justified and subsequently denied for many years. I have previously discussed the role of the provinces in promoting eugenics as part of their provision of health care. Both Alberta and British Columbia legislated eugenics population control methods which allowed forced sterilization between 1928 and 1973, and Indigenous women were disproportionately targeted for these procedures. Thank you, Senator Simons, for your speech and the deep dive into the history of eugenics in Alberta.
I have also spoken about how Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario all introduced similar bills, and although they did not become law, they highlight the normalization of sterilization as population control.
It is not just the provinces that are to blame. In many of our own lifetimes, both senators and members of Parliament have advocated for forced sterilization or have failed to appreciate the severity of the issue. Hansard has consistently recorded the issue of sterilizing Indigenous women since as early as 1924, and as we speak 100 years later, in 2024, about the last woman who we know was sterilized against her will in December 2023.
In September, just two weeks ago, the Canadian Medical Association issued a formal public apology with ceremony to Indigenous peoples for its role and the role of medical professionals in past and ongoing harms to Indigenous people in the health care system. Included in the harms being apologized for was the issue of forced and coerced sterilization.
While the CMA is taking important steps to address this, amongst many other issues, there needs to be swift and serious legislative action as well. It is incumbent on us, as the current occupants of these seats, to send a clear message that forced sterilization of any sort is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated.
I would like to thank the critic, Senator David Wells, for his ongoing support, and I would like to thank the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the clerks and the staff and especially the chairs, Senator Jaffer and Senator Cotter, for shepherding Bill S-250 though all of the required steps. I would like to thank my office, Sky and Veronica, and I want to thank all of you and all my parliamentary colleagues in the other place who have been so incredibly supportive. This bill has been a culmination of a lifetime of work not just for me but for so many people whom I have had the honour to work with over the years.
As I have done every time I have spoken about this issue in the Senate, I would like to thank the women who have trusted me — the women who are watching, those who have telephoned me, the women who have emailed me or found me in person to tell me their stories and the courageous women who have come forward to provide testimony. For the ones who haven’t been able to come forward yet, please know that it is becoming easier with each step that we take. I encourage you and others to keep contacting me — I will always listen and help where I can.
As senators, we must use our platform to fight for those who do not have a voice and strive to restore their reproductive futures. Through Bill S-250, we can take a step towards eradicating this blatant violence. Let us come together to be on the right side of history. I hope that our chamber will pass this bill expeditiously and that the other place will give it the prompt attention and consideration it deserves. The women are waiting.
All our relations. Marsee, meegwetch, thank you.
May I ask you a question?
Yes.
First of all, thank you for the incredible job that you have done — that’s not a question but a comment. You have been relentless in educating Canadians, particularly those of us in the Senate, about what has been happening for far too long. When the Human Rights Committee was studying it, we heard this hadn’t been happening for a few years, and to hear you speak today about it happening in 2023 is more than heartbreaking; it’s very cruel, actually.
When the Human Rights Committee was studying this issue, we heard about forced sterilization, particularly in Indigenous, Black communities and lower-income communities. We heard the story from one woman who spoke about being in labour in the hospital. They came to her with a form to fill out to allow sterilization when she had the baby. For those of us in the chamber who have had children, the idea of somebody coming to you when you’re in labour, asking you to sign something, they would be lucky their arm wouldn’t be torn off.
Anyway, I said that Indigenous, Black and lower-income women seem to be the ones. Would you say that, indeed, would be a form of systemic racism within our society?
Thank you, Senator Cordy. Yes, it’s definitely a form of systemic racism, but sterilization doesn’t only affect Indigenous women. We also heard from the disability community, the intersex community and vulnerable and marginalized people that sterilization affects them as well.
In relation to Indigenous women — and men, I have heard of — Indigenous men have also been affected by this. I would say, yes, systemic racism is definitely prevalent.
Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise to support the Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), sponsored by the Honourable Senator Boyer.
I would first like to commend Senator Boyer on her leadership in bringing this bill forward and on how it will provide safeguards for many people facing systemic discrimination.
As we have heard previously in this chamber, Canada has a long history of forced and coerced sterilization among people who are the victims of systemic discrimination, including people with intersecting vulnerabilities relating to poverty, race and disability. Although explicit eugenic laws and policies have been repealed, discriminatory attitudes that gave rise to them are still present in Canadian society, and forced and coerced sterilization still occurs, as you have just heard. The Senate has previously acknowledged people with disabilities as a population impacted by non-consensual sterilization in the 2022 report The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II.
The forms of coercion described by witnesses at that time included manipulation, exploiting vulnerability or omitting to consult patients before forever removing their ability to conceive.
Inclusion Canada and People First of Canada — two national groups advocating for the interests of people with intellectual disabilities — shared, among others, the following experience to demonstrate how wide a net was cast. The woman was raised in poverty and endured abuse in her childhood. She was assessed as having a low IQ at the age of 11 and was sterilized at the age of 14 without her knowledge or consent, having been told that she had required an appendectomy. It was later revealed that her IQ test was faulty; yet she had suffered the fate of a person with an intellectual disability.
Bill S-250 explicitly sets out that the act of sterilizing a person without their consent is a criminal offence in Canada. Because surgeries necessarily involve wounding the patient, they constitute aggravated assault if they are performed without the patient’s consent.
As was made clear by the senior counsel of the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice Canada at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, legal consent has several tests. Consent means the absence of fraud or duress. So, this rule is at issue where a patient is pressured or deceived into consenting to a medical procedure. Second, consent to the nature of the act requires a foundation of knowledge, which has been described as knowledge of the purpose of the operation and knowledge of the events and perception as to what is about to take place, as to the character of what is done. This rule is at issue where the patient is not provided with sufficient information to understand the nature of the procedure to which they are consenting.
A third rule of consent is the ability to understand, meaning that patients must be able to appreciate the nature of the act. This rule is at issue where the patient is a child, is someone under the age of 18 or has a cognitive impairment.
Bill S-250 underscores that the law of assault continues to apply to all sterilization procedures — all of them — that are performed without the patient’s legally effective consent. It also underscores that valid consent must be provided for all sterilization procedures, regardless of whether sterilization was the primary purpose of the surgery and regardless of whether subsequent surgical intervention could reverse it.
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee made an observation in its report that is important to note. The committee has consistently reported in the past about how the Criminal Code has been amended in a piecemeal manner. The committee therefore repeated its past recommendation that an independent body should undertake a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. The revived Law Commission of Canada could undertake such a review, which should include a study of all provisions in the Code that pertain to crimes against vulnerable persons.
Canada signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in March 2010. On the issue of eugenics in Canada, Article 23 of the convention requires state parties to protect persons with disabilities from forced sterilization, regardless of their perpetrator, along with all other discriminatory practices compromising their reproductive health. It requires that the state take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships on an equal basis with others so as to ensure that persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others.
Please join with me in supporting Bill S-250, which upholds the spirit of that UN convention.
Thank you, woliwon.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Boyer’s Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), which proposes to amend section 268 of the Criminal Code. Section 268 addresses aggravated assault offences, and Bill S-250 creates an offence for sterilization without consent.
I want to thank Senator Boyer and her office for their dedicated work as they listened deeply to the experiences of the survivors of forced and coerced sterilization. Doing that type of work takes courage, tenacity, focus and perseverance to bring these unconscionable actions out of the darkness and into the light.
I would like to begin by harkening back to September 2022. I recall that date, as it brought to me the consciousness that I was in a position of privilege in several ways. I remember looking at all of the senators in the chamber. I realized then that I would never want to be with another group of senators than this collective and that I had so much to be thankful for, walking part of my earth journey with you. I thought back to moments where there were acts of kindness and compassion demonstrated towards me: a senator lugging my heavy suitcase up three flights of stairs because the elevator wasn’t working; a senator whose eyes twinkled as I reached out for his support; a senator whom I saw, through someone else’s words, that they were the greatest boss; a senator who let me know they were available if I needed someone to listen to me; and the senators who would give up their time to accommodate me during Senators’ Statements.
In that moment of reflection, I thought back to the senators who are passionate about their issues and bringing them to the floor to educate us and increase our awareness of matters important to them and their regions; to the senators who took the time to do research so they could speak to First Nations issues that were previously unfamiliar terrain; to the votes to meaningfully advance First Nations’ rights.
Thank you to all those senators and staff who model values and principles such as truth, compassion, courage, justice, bravery, eloquence, balance, conciliation, patience, sharing and grace, for, in doing so, they remind me of our shared humanity. One of the teachings of First Nations is that everyone we meet helps to shape us into doing and being better. You did that for me.
Honourable senators, I would like you to think back to your varied accomplishments over your lifetime and during your time in the Senate. Imagine the transformative change that you have been involved in within your work in your communities, provinces and nationally in making meaningful change for the people who reached out to you and those whom you represent.
Now imagine all the people across the country and their accomplishments and contributions to help Canada become a country that is inclusive and just.
Now imagine that some of us in this chamber and many others across Canada had their lives terminated before they even began. How different my world would be if I hadn’t met many of you. Imagine that the invaluable contributions to the community, the inherent and spiritual right to life were eradicated because of the forced sterilization of their mothers. Imagine the many lights that were extinguished before they had the God-given opportunity to burn bright. We are indeed privileged that our mothers’ right to creation was not extinguished.
Honourable senators, I will speak to the unique situation of First Nations, Métis and Inuit women, as they were specifically targeted in Canadian society because of the false notion of racial inferiority.
The quotes in my speech come from the book entitled An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Women, published by Karen Stote in 2015.
As an example, in 1945, the clinical records of Essondale Hospital stated:
This mentally defective young woman[’s] . . . social background reveals a history of promiscuity, venereal disease, tuberculosis and one illegitimate pregnancy . . . Because of limited intelligence, lack of supportive family supervision and a propensity for illicit sexual behaviour, her rehabilitation through the auspices of the Indian Affairs Department, is most problematical . . . it is, therefore, desirable to offer her the protection of sexual sterilization . . . While she will undoubtedly continue to be a social problem on discharge from this hospital, sexual sterilization would prevent her from having further children who might become social problems.
Colleagues, people relegated to live in the shadows because of colonization, colonialism, racism and sexism live an injustice in that they are placed in vulnerable, powerless and voiceless positions. How else could a violent activity like forced sterilization be practised for so long and without repercussions for those who make such unilateral, inhumane and egregious decisions?
Honourable senators, fundamentally, assimilation is the imposition of one particular way of life at the expense and destruction of another. Such assimilation enables the stripping from Aboriginal women of the ability to control their reproduction and denies them the opportunity to raise their children in their cultural ways of life.
In 1883, while discussing the education scheme being laid out for Aboriginal peoples, Member of Parliament Edward Blake highlighted the importance of targeting Indian girls. His statement illustrates that racist ideology played a role in justifying Indian policy:
If [we] leave the young Indian girl who is to mature into a squaw to have the uncivilized habits of the tribe, the Indian, when he married such a squaw, will likely be pulled into Indian savagery by her. If this scheme is going to succeed at all, you will . . . have to civilize the intended wives . . . I have known . . . how difficult it is to eradicate that hereditary taint.
Colleagues, as stated by Senator Boyer and echoed by Senator Simons, sterilization was enacted in provincial law in Alberta and also in British Columbia.
In Alberta, the Sexual Sterilization Act was in effect from 1928 to 1972. During this time, the eugenics board passed 4739 cases for sterilization. Of these, 2834 sterilization operations were performed. In a study of patient files by Timothy Christian, patients most likely to be presented and approved for sterilization occupied socially marginalized positions. Those most likely to fit this categorization . . . were Aboriginal peoples. When opposition to the Act gained momentum and its repeal became more likely, the rate at which Aboriginal peoples were sterilized underwent a terrific increase, representing over 25% of those sterilized. Christian says:
It is incredible that between 1969 and 1972, more Indian and Metis persons were sterilized than British, especially when it is considered that Indians or Metis were the least significant racial group statistically and British the most significant.
Amendments to the Act increased the likelihood that Aboriginal peoples would be subject to sterilization. In 1937, the consent for mental defectives was excised. This amendment allowed the Eugenics Board to compel the sterilization of any patient it defined as mentally defective and who was likely to transmit this defectiveness to his/her progeny. Grekul and her colleagues estimate that 77% of Aboriginal patients presented to the Board were diagnosed as mentally defective [and] no longer had much say in whether they would be sterilized.
Colleagues, the author continues:
The sterilization of Aboriginal peoples under the Alberta Sterilization Act was recognized as having the potential to cause problems in the future. . . . It does not appear the Department was necessarily motivated by any humanitarian or legal concern for Aboriginal peoples, but more with avoiding a charge that bears a resemblance to genocide . . . .
The Department of Indian Affairs stated:
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Indians might get an impression that there was a conspiracy for the elimination of the race by this means.
The Department’s failure to issue a statement condemning the sterilization of Aboriginal peoples is to condone the practice and can be read as an acknowledgement that, at the very least, it knew the practice was taking place.
The Department stated that it had:
. . . no objections to the laws of the province being carried out and any action taken in accordance will not meet disapproval.
In this same year, 1942, another amendment to the act was made that exempted from future civil action any person who took part in a surgical procedure, or any authoritative figure working in a mental institution and who was involved in a recommendation for sterilization. The proportion of Aboriginal peoples sterilized by the act rose steadily from 1939 onward, tripling from 1949 to 1959. Despite the stipulation that consent be obtained, it was only sought in 17% if Aboriginal cases overall.
In 1951 an amendment was also made to the Indian Act that increased the application of provincial laws to Indians . . . . This amendment included the first definition of a mentally incompetent Indian as one defined according to the laws of a province in which “he” resides. In other words, a mentally incompetent Indian was whatever a province deemed him or her to be.
Honourable senators, having the privilege to create life connects us to humanity, our families, communities, our environment and our ancestors.
Elder Rarihokwats, in the book entitled Quest for Respect, states:
The elders speak of the “Seventh Generation” of the seven generations of Spirit coming towards us, the ones who will ask about us, wanting to know what we did to prepare the world in which they were to arrive and live.
You will remember I acknowledge my First Nations ancestors with the perseverance, determination and sober second thought in how they fought so that we, as the seventh generation, would not remain in the same deplorable state that was imposed on them by policies and legislation coordinated between the federal government and the churches. This included their exclusion from entering the grounds of Parliament Hill.
Colleagues, this is why I hold so dearly my responsibilities to bring truth to this sacred chamber — in this case, truth about the genocide of Aboriginal peoples.
The question for Canadians and parliamentarians now is how our country, which has supposedly made decades-long progress on women’s rights, could have hidden or not acknowledged this crime?
Colleagues, this bill criminalizes genocidal activity. It must transcend the political bartering that occurs with the leadership in Senate. I urge you to stand together against this horrific practice of forced sterilization and its implications towards genocide and stand in support of Bill S-250 receiving its vote.
Kinanâskomitin.
Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).
Bill S-250 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize non-consented sterilization as aggravated assault, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The bill responds to over 12,000 documented cases of forced or coerced sterilization in Canada, with no charges or convictions under existing laws.
Forced sterilization is a violation of bodily autonomy and human rights, and, more than that, it’s an attack on the soul of a person. Criminalizing it sends a clear message that this practice is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee did a deep dive, and the bill now establishes protection for health care providers and institutions.
Many women, especially Indigenous women, women with disabilities and others, have been victims of forced sterilization, for example, Sylvia Tuckanow, who was forcibly sterilized after giving birth, and others who were coerced into the procedure at vulnerable times. Some survivors were deliberately misinformed about the procedure’s permanency or coerced into signing consent forms during emotionally and physically vulnerable circumstances. Despite existing provisions under the Criminal Code, no prosecutions or convictions have taken place. That, colleagues, in itself should be a crime.
Critics argue that existing laws should cover these crimes, but the lack of action or enforcement demonstrates the need for a specific criminal offence for forced sterilization. The bill closes this gap in legal protections and enforcement. These procedures have left lasting physical, emotional and psychological trauma and distrust in the health care system. This legislation does not fix past harms but goes a long way to preventing future violations, and it does provide survivors some measure of justice.
Forced sterilization is a clear human rights violation, and, with Bill S-250, Canada is acting to prevent it from continuing. The bill introduces amendments to simplify its language, ensuring health care providers are protected when conducting necessary emergency procedures. The core message remains: Non‑consenting sterilization is aggravated assault and will be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The bill responds directly to the 2018 UN Committee against Torture recommendations to address forced sterilization in Canada.
I want to take a moment to thank Senator Boyer for her tireless efforts in bringing this deeply important issue to the fore. Senator, you are nearing the finish line.
Senator Boyer’s commitment to human rights and to the victims of forced sterilization is a testament to her dedication to justice. Her leadership in advancing Bill S-250 is nothing short of inspiring, and we and Canada owe her a debt of gratitude for being a champion for the most vulnerable in our society.
With that, colleagues, I call the question. Thank you.
Are senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed.)
