Forced Sterilization Treated as Aggravated Assault

Summary#

This bill amends Canada’s Criminal Code to state clearly that a sterilization procedure counts as “wounding or maiming” for the crime of aggravated assault. It also defines what “sterilization procedure” means, including common procedures and any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction, even if a later surgery could reverse it (Bill, clause 1). The bill does not create a new offence; it clarifies how existing law applies (Criminal Code s.268(1)).

• Clarifies that forced sterilization can be charged as aggravated assault (Criminal Code s.268(1)).
• Sets a clear definition of “sterilization procedure,” including tubal ligation and similar procedures, and a catch‑all for any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction (Bill, clause 1).
• Leaves consent-based medical care unchanged; consensual sterilization remains legal.
• Maximum penalty for aggravated assault remains up to 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s.268(2)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If someone is sterilized without valid consent, police and prosecutors can charge aggravated assault under a clarified rule. This could make investigations and charges more straightforward (Bill, clause 1; Criminal Code s.268(1)).
  • The bill does not affect access to voluntary sterilization. If you consent, procedures like tubal ligation or vasectomy remain lawful.

• Patients seeking sterilization

  • Your right to choose sterilization is unchanged. The bill targets only non-consensual acts. It adds clarity that forced sterilization is treated as a serious violent offence (Bill, clause 1; Criminal Code s.268(1)).

• Health care providers

  • No new paperwork or licensing rules in the bill. But performing a sterilization without valid consent could more clearly expose a provider to aggravated assault charges, with penalties up to 14 years (Criminal Code s.268(2)).
  • The bill defines “sterilization procedure” broadly, including procedures on reproductive organs and any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction, whether or not it can later be reversed (Bill, clause 1).

• Hospitals and clinics

  • The bill does not mandate new policies. Facilities may still choose to review consent practices for sterilization to reduce legal risk. The bill itself only amends the Criminal Code definition (Bill, clause 1).

• Law enforcement and prosecutors

  • Provides a direct route to charge forced sterilization as aggravated assault by confirming it “wounds or maims” under s.268(1) (Bill, clause 1; Criminal Code s.268(1)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations or funding authorizations in the bill text (Bill, clause 1).
• Possible impacts on justice system workloads (investigations, prosecutions) are not quantified. Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Clarifies accountability: Explicitly stating that sterilization is “wounding or maiming” removes doubt and helps police and prosecutors bring aggravated assault charges for forced sterilization (Bill, clause 1; Criminal Code s.268(1)).
• Addresses a documented harm: The preamble recognizes a legacy of non-consensual sterilization, especially affecting Indigenous and racialized persons, and aims to deter it (Preamble).
• Broad, inclusive definition: Covers common procedures on reproductive organs and any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction, even if reversible later, closing possible loopholes (Bill, clause 1).
• Maintains lawful care: Does not interfere with consensual sterilization or standard medical practice; it targets only non-consensual acts (Bill, clause 1).
• Strong penalty framework: Keeps forced sterilization within aggravated assault, which carries penalties up to 14 years, signaling seriousness and deterrence (Criminal Code s.268(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Redundancy concern: Some argue existing assault and aggravated assault provisions already cover non-consensual sterilization, so the amendment may be unnecessary (Criminal Code s.265, s.268(1)).
• Consent complexity: Disputes over whether consent was informed or valid can be hard to prove. Clarifying “wounding or maiming” does not resolve those factual challenges and could create false confidence about ease of prosecution (Bill, clause 1).
• Possible chilling effect: The broad definition, including procedures that are sometimes reversible (e.g., vasectomy), could create confusion among providers and patients, potentially deterring voluntary sterilization despite no change to consent-based legality (Bill, clause 1).
• Jurisdictional limits: The bill does not change provincial health consent laws or hospital policies, so it may have limited effect on prevention without parallel policy or training efforts. Data unavailable.