Forced Sterilization Treated as Aggravated Assault

Summary#

This bill changes the Criminal Code to clearly state that a sterilization procedure counts as “wounding or maiming” for aggravated assault. It also defines what a sterilization procedure is, including procedures that permanently prevent reproduction, even if they can later be reversed (Bill s.(1)–(2); Criminal Code s.268(1)).

• Clarifies that non-consensual sterilization can be charged as aggravated assault (Bill s.(1); Criminal Code s.268(1)).
• Sets a broad definition of sterilization, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction (Bill s.(2)).
• Notes that reversibility later does not change that it is a sterilization procedure (Bill s.(2)).
• Does not create a new crime, but clarifies how existing law applies (Bill s.(1)).
• Maximum penalty for aggravated assault is 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s.268(2)).

What it means for you#

• Households and patients:

  • If someone performs a sterilization on you without valid consent or lawful authority, police and prosecutors can treat it as aggravated assault, with a maximum penalty of 14 years (Bill s.(1); Criminal Code s.268(2)).
  • The definition covers procedures on the Fallopian tubes, ovaries, or uterus, and any other procedure that permanently prevents reproduction, even if a later surgery could reverse it (Bill s.(2)).
  • This bill does not limit access to voluntary, informed-consent sterilization procedures (Criminal Code s.45).

• Health care providers:

  • Performing a sterilization without valid, informed consent or other lawful authority can be prosecuted as aggravated assault (Bill s.(1); Criminal Code s.268(1)–(2)).
  • Lawful surgical operations done with reasonable care and for the patient’s benefit remain protected (Criminal Code s.45).
  • Clear consent processes and records for sterilization procedures will be important for compliance (Bill s.(1)–(2); Criminal Code s.45).

• Hospitals and health authorities:

  • May need to review and update consent policies and staff training for sterilization procedures to ensure clear, informed consent is obtained and documented (Bill s.(1)–(2); Criminal Code s.45).
  • Risk management may adjust auditing or oversight for these procedures (Data unavailable).

• Law enforcement and prosecutors:

  • Provides a clearer charging pathway using aggravated assault for non-consensual sterilization cases (Bill s.(1); Criminal Code s.268(1)–(2)).
  • The broad definition can support investigations where sterilization is alleged, even if the procedure could, in theory, be reversed later (Bill s.(2)).

• Indigenous and racialized communities:

  • The preamble recognizes the historic and disproportionate impact of sterilization without consent on Indigenous and racialized persons. The preamble guides context but does not create new legal rights (Preamble).

• Timing:

  • The bill contains no delayed start clause; federal Criminal Code amendments generally take effect on Royal Assent (no specific clause in bill text).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key points:

  • No appropriations, new agencies, or fees are created in the bill text (Bill s.(1)–(2)).
  • No official fiscal note identified. Any effects on justice system workload or training costs are not quantified (Data unavailable).

Proponents' View#

• Clarifies the law so non-consensual sterilization can be charged as aggravated assault, reducing ambiguity for police and prosecutors (Bill s.(1); Criminal Code s.268(1)–(2)).
• Sets a broad, practical definition so cases are not dismissed because a procedure is theoretically reversible (Bill s.(2)).
• Responds to a documented legacy of sterilization without consent, especially affecting Indigenous and racialized persons, and signals Parliament’s stance against it (Preamble).
• Does not affect lawful, consensual medical care protected under the surgical operations defence (Criminal Code s.45).
• May improve deterrence because aggravated assault carries up to 14 years, a serious penalty (Criminal Code s.268(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Redundant: existing Criminal Code language on “wounds or maims” already captures non-consensual sterilization; adding text may be symbolic rather than necessary (Criminal Code s.268(1)).
• Overbreadth risk: the definition could cover necessary surgeries that result in permanent infertility, creating fear of criminal exposure unless reliance on Criminal Code s.45 is clear (Bill s.(2); Criminal Code s.45).
• Compliance uncertainty: providers may face uncertainty about what counts as valid consent in complex clinical situations, possibly leading to defensive practices or reduced access to sterilization services (Data unavailable).
• Implementation burden: hospitals may need to revise consent forms and training, with unquantified costs and no dedicated funding (Data unavailable).