Jaime Battiste
Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, and I want to acknowledge the history I witnessed on Saturday when Mi'kmaq rock icons The Relatives took to the stage to celebrate their 40th anniversary as a band.”
“In some circles, the longevity of the band has earned them the moniker of the “Mi'kmaq Rolling Stones”. I am proud to recognize them. [ Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text: ] Welukweyoq aq weltaql. [ Member provided the following translation: ] You are doing great, and the music sounds great.”
“They provide predictability and clarity and explicitly protect private interests while advancing reconciliation. We saw that recently in the agreement with the Haida Nation, which addressed aboriginal title while clearly providing for the protection of private fee simple lands. That is the value of negotiations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I want to respectfully say that I have heard a lot of Conservatives get up and pretend they know something about aboriginal litigation. As someone who taught aboriginal and treaty rights law at university, I have heard some of these arguments.”
“That divergence is exactly why we need to have clarity from the courts, and that is why it is being appealed. This is an important point. When the law is unsettled, it creates space for speculation. It creates space for competing interpretations and, in that space, misinformation can take hold and facts can be twisted.”
“On the one hand, we have court decisions that are exploring new and unsettled legal territory. On the other hand, we have negotiated agreements that are designed to create clarity, not uncertainty. That distinction matters because litigation and negotiation do very different things.”
The complete record
Every one of 115 lines we hold for Jaime Battiste, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“In some circles, the longevity of the band has earned them the moniker of the “Mi'kmaq Rolling Stones”. I am proud to recognize them. [ Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text: ] Welukweyoq aq weltaql. [ Member provided the following translation: ] You are doing great, and the music sounds great. [ English ] I thank them for their 40 years of excellence.”
“Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, and I want to acknowledge the history I witnessed on Saturday when Mi'kmaq rock icons The Relatives took to the stage to celebrate their 40th anniversary as a band. Tom Johnson, Stan Johnson, Derek Johnson, Darren Stevens, Robert Stevens and Tom Sylliboy have been playing crowd-pleasing get-up-and-dance music across Cape Breton and Mi'kma'ki for four decades. With great original songs like Nutepaqn , Kweji'juow and Perfect Love Song , The Relatives are pioneers in singing songs in the Mi'kmaq language. Not only are The Relatives talented musicians, but they have been exemplary members of the community, volunteering, mentoring, or performing for local causes. They have had deep and lasting impacts that reach far beyond their music.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to look at every single aboriginal title litigation or every section 35 case. There are things called intervenors. The Conservative Party of Canada could actually apply to be an intervenor, since it has all the answers when it comes to litigating first nations rights. I doubt it would be granted, because the Supreme Court looks at rational and reasonable arguments, not at political and irresponsible arguments. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“The government, the nations and the province find ways to create dialogue, get to the negotiation table and ensure that we are representing all rights in a situation where all parties are winning and no one loses out.”
“Mr. Speaker, truthfully, when I go across this country, I hear chiefs and leaders talking about justice. They talk about the rights that they had, the title and the resources, and they just want their fair share. They are not asking for anything over and above what Canadians receive. They want to be part of a system. They want to be a part of growing. They have these rights, recognized by section 35 and often upheld in the courts, and when those rights are upheld, they often negotiate with our federal government to figure out how we implement those rights. It has happened for the Mi'kmaq in 1990 with the Marshall decision. It happens in British Columbia with aboriginal title.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that this determination needs to go through the court system. When we have things that are before the courts, we have an independent judiciary. It is really important that, when it comes to the law, we have the application of those facts in law done in independent ways.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I want to respectfully say that I have heard a lot of Conservatives get up and pretend they know something about aboriginal litigation. As someone who taught aboriginal and treaty rights law at university, I have heard some of these arguments. When a court case comes to the Supreme Court of Canada, many intervenors will come in with many different arguments. For the members opposite to suggest that there was one opportunity to have an argument that might go to the Supreme Court of Canada is non-factual. It is not based in any kind of actual fact from anyone who has ever read an aboriginal title case or anyone who has actually looked at the court cases and said, here is what happens when indigenous nations have proved what their section 35 rights are. We sit down and negotiate with them.”
“For Canadians at home hearing this, our government is ready, prepared and willing to negotiate and ensure that we are protecting property rights at the same time as advancing reconciliation.”
“We have seen multiple British Columbia tribes go to court and have their aboriginal titles recognized, from the Nisga'a to the Delgamuukw and the Tsilhqot’in. There is not one example where these court cases resulted in someone losing their fee simple property rights. It just has not happened. To suggest that for some reason or somehow these tribes are going to come after this title and take people's homes and property is just irresponsible, not factual and meant to create fear and misinform Canadians. On this side of the House, we will continue to balance our efforts toward reconciliation with the interests of Canadians. We have done so in every single indigenous case that has ever gone to the Supreme Court where indigenous tribes have won, and we will continue to do so moving forward.”
“We will continue to engage Canadians with honesty and transparency and acknowledging what we know, what we do not know yet and what we are doing to get clarity. Fear must not replace facts. Reconciliation must move forward through respectful, balanced and negotiated agreements. At the end of the day, Canadians have confidence that their rights and interests are being protected and reconciliation is being advanced in a thoughtful, measured and fact-based way. That is how certainty is built and trust is strengthened and how we will move together. I want to dwell on this because there has been a lot of misinformation. Conservatives continue to act as if aboriginal title in Canada is a new thing. It has been recognized since 1973.”
“They provide predictability and clarity and explicitly protect private interests while advancing reconciliation. We saw that recently in the agreement with the Haida Nation, which addressed aboriginal title while clearly providing for the protection of private fee simple lands. That is the value of negotiations. Negotiations allow complexity to be addressed directly and balanced outcomes to be reached. Courts answer legal questions. Negotiations build lasting solutions. We are committed to ensuring those negotiations go forward in a way that creates clarity. Yes, there is uncertainty right now. Canadians have legitimate questions, and we are acting to address that uncertainty by seeking clarity through the courts where the issue is already being raised. At the same time, that uncertainty cannot be used to misinterpret the facts.”
“On the one hand, we have court decisions that are exploring new and unsettled legal territory. On the other hand, we have negotiated agreements that are designed to create clarity, not uncertainty. That distinction matters because litigation and negotiation do very different things. Litigation can clarify the law over time, but it often does so in a narrow, incremental way that can leave broader uncertainty in the meantime. Negotiation allows parties to sit down, address concerns directly and build solutions that reflect real-world impacts. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has resulted in Canadians losing privately owned land. This goes back to 1973 when aboriginal title was first recognized and discussed in the Calder case. In fact, negotiated agreements consistently do the opposite.”
“In other words, it is about creating a path forward for dialogue and clarity, not changing who owns what today. In fact, private property was never part of these negotiations and will never be part of any future negotiations. (1305) I would remind colleagues that in British Columbia, jurisdiction over private property rests with the province. It is not something that the federal government can simply negotiate away, and it has not done so. The Musqueam themselves have been clear that this agreement is not about pursuing privately owned land, so when Canadians hear claims that agreements like this somehow put their homes and businesses at risk, those claims are not grounded in fact. They are grounded in trying to create fear. The distinction is important.”
“Here are the facts. It does not impact Canadians' private property. This agreement does not grant new rights. It does not define or finalize the scope of any existing Musqueam aboriginal rights and it does not attach any such rights to specific parcels of land. What it does do is acknowledge that rights exist, which they do under section 35 of the Constitution, and it creates a structured process for Canada and Musqueam to work together to better understand how those rights may be addressed over time. That is it. It is a framework for negotiations. It is not a transfer of land or change in ownership and it does not affect private property. It does not override provincial jurisdiction and it does not give any decision-making authority over land or resources to Musqueam through this agreement.”
“That divergence is exactly why we need to have clarity from the courts, and that is why it is being appealed. This is an important point. When the law is unsettled, it creates space for speculation. It creates space for competing interpretations and, in that space, misinformation can take hold and facts can be twisted. This is where myth begins to enter the picture because while this legal uncertainty is real, it is being used and weaponized in some cases to suggest that negotiated agreements are putting private property at risk. That is simply not true. It is important that we say that clearly, but also respectfully, because many Canadians asking these questions are doing so in good faith. Therefore, let me address one example directly. There has been commentary about the Musqueam agreement and what it does and does not do.”
“We recognized that it creates uncertainty, and that is why it is being appealed. Canadians deserve clarity on something as fundamental as property rights. That is not just our view; it is reflected in the fact that the courts themselves are not aligned on this issue. I want to bring to members' attention that in New Brunswick, the litigation involving the Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick and Canada decision at the Court of Appeal reached a very different conclusion. The court stated that it was open for courts to make a finding of aboriginal title over private property, which could lead to a compensation award against the Crown, but that declaration of aboriginal title could not be made over private property. Therefore, we now have two court decisions in Canada taking opposite approaches.”
“For decades, Canadian courts have developed aboriginal title law carefully and incrementally since it was first recognized back in 1973. The decision in the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case at the Supreme Court of British Columbia took a novel approach. It found that aboriginal title could exist in areas that include private fee simple lands and suggested that those interests could actually coexist. The court did not invalidate private property held titles. It did not remove land from individuals. What it did was introduce a new and complex legal question about precisely how continuing private property interests could coexist with what the court also declared was a superior aboriginal title interest. Our government has been clear. We do not agree with the court's decision in Cowichan.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond East—Steveston . I want to take a few minutes today to separate fact from fiction. Right now, when it comes to aboriginal title in this country, there is a lot of confusion. That confusion fuels concern and, in some cases, misinformation is making it worse. Let me be very clear from the outset: Some of the anxiety Canadians are feeling right now is understandable and it is rooted in the fact that this area of law is not settled and is evolving. For many Canadians, this is not an abstract. It is about their homes, their businesses, their communities and their sense of security. When people hear conflicting information about something as fundamental as property rights, it is entirely reasonable that they ask questions and expect clear answers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I question some of the logic in the member's speech. I understand that these are concerns that his constituents have brought up, but aboriginal title has been recognized in Canada since 1973. There was the Delgamuukw case in 1997, and three or four different aboriginal title cases have been recognized in British Columbia. Can the member opposite point to a single time when someone lost their property as a result of aboriginal title?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to talk about what the capabilities would be in Nova Scotia in the future with this spaceport. As a big fan of Star Trek growing up, I always wanted to say that Canada is going to boldly go where no man has gone before. With this technology and with this investment, our riding and our province have the ability to lead, and I look forward to being a part of that. I look forward to all of the potential, the growth, the technology and the innovation that would come out of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. It is a great time to be from that riding, and it is a great time to be a Nova Scotian.”
“Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that when we build, we are looking through not only a rural lens, but also one of indigenous participation. In moving forward, we not only expect projects that advance indigenous interests, but we expect meaningful equity, meaningful partnership and meaningful participation. We believe that with this spaceport, we would see 1,600 jobs in a rural area that has five first nations communities around it. We expect them to be full partners in the jobs and in the ability to move forward with partnership, with participation and with equity.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we really need to concentrate on is the fact that Canada is the only country in the G7 without sovereign space launch capabilities. It is really important for us to focus on our safety, our security and our sovereignty moving forward. For far too long, we have relied on our partners to help us in this area. It is time for Canada to lead. It is time for Canada to innovate, and I am proud that my riding is at the forefront of ensuring that this happens. Supporting this legislation ensures that we move forward with innovation and building big things in Canada.”
“Supporting this act means supporting engineers perfecting rocket engines in Sherbrooke, construction workers building launch pads in Nova Scotia, communities that will grow around Canada's spaceport, and every scientist, technician and innovator ready to write the next chapter of our space story. All that remains is for this House to say yes, to ignite the innovation engine, empower Canadian entrepreneurs and ensure that the next rocket to leave Canadian soil carries the full weight of Canadian law, Canadian ambition and Canadian pride. Canada's innovators and economy are ready for us to finally take to the stars, on our own terms, and I am happy to see that happening.”
“Long coastlines offer the ability to launch safely over water, and our border with the United States, the world's largest satellite producer, means seamless supply chain integration. As the global launch infrastructure approaches capacity, international companies are seeking stable alternatives. Canada is positioned to be that destination, but only with the legal framework to welcome them. This legislation is about unleashing Canadians' potential, telling the entrepreneurs across Canada that their government believes in them and is giving them the tools to succeed.”
“With spaceport Nova Scotia, when Nova Scotians look to the stars, they will know that our province contributed to the future of space, built and led right here in Canada. More than 20% of our current economy relies on satellites. In Nova Scotia, we want to continue to be at the forefront of building our economy and these satellites. These companies are proof that Canadian innovation is alive from coast to coast to coast and ready to compete if we give it the framework. This legislation is their launch pad. Atlantic Canada's competitive advantages for commercial space launches are enormous. Our northern geography provides direct access to several desirable orbits essential for earth observation, climate monitoring and defence.”
“It is not surprising that there are no Conservatives in Nova Scotia as MPs, because every time a company decides to invest in our province, the Conservatives launch a crusade to kill the jobs, investments and economic benefits for Nova Scotians. We saw it when they opposed legislation, supported by the Progressive Conservative government, to build offshore wind. Thankfully, we did not let them block billions in investment, thousands of jobs, economic opportunities for first nations and our ability to be a renewable energy superpower. We saw it when they opposed the Mersey River renewable project, which would allow Nova Scotians to switch off Nova Scotia power to a new provider. Now they are opposing Nova Scotia's ambitions to be a leader in Canada's commercial space industry, which is expected to be worth $40 billion.”
“In my home riding, Maritime Launch Services is building one of Canada's first spaceports in Canso. Currently under construction and set to be built by 2028, it is expected to contribute $300 million to our GDP annually. Once fully operational, it will create 1,600 jobs in my riding. I want to repeat that: 1,600 jobs in rural Nova Scotia. That is an amazing thing, and I have so much gratitude for that. (1330) This project will deliver enormous economic opportunities for our communities and families. It will contribute to rural economic development, drive tourism and show the world that Nova Scotians can get big things done. That is why I am shocked that the Conservative leader took to Elon Musk's social media company to oppose this competing commercial spaceport project.”
“NordSpace, headquartered in Ontario and operating in Newfoundland and Labrador, is advancing plans for a commercial spaceport that would create high-skilled jobs, attract investments and inspire the next generation of Canadian engineers and scientists to see rocket launch from Canadian soil. Based in Toronto, Canada Rocket Company is helping to reverse the brain drain by bringing skilled Canadians home to build cutting-edge light- and medium-lift rockets, advancing Canada's objective of securing reliable access to space. Reaction Dynamics, headquartered in Quebec, is developing advanced infrastructure-light launch vehicles that position Canada at the forefront of environmentally responsible access to space: nimble, sustainable and globally competitive.”
“Lawrence, when paramedics locate a caller in seconds, when communities in the north rely on satellite links for school and telehealth, when utilities and banks synchronize time across vast networks or when our armed forces secure communications, maintain situational awareness, navigate environments and collect intelligence, each of these everyday capabilities depends on space-based assets overhead. Satellites are only as reliable as our ability to launch, maintain, defend and replace them. Sovereign launch capability is not a luxury, but a strategic necessity. Let me speak directly about the innovators who are the human face of this act.”
“Innovation is in our DNA, but innovators need the right conditions to thrive, a framework that matches the scale of their ambition, which is what this legislation would provide. The global space economy is projected to grow more than 200% by 2032. Here at home, Canada's space sector workforce grew by almost 6% in 2023, reaching an all-time high. Canadians are ready to compete and lead in this rapidly expanding market, and this legislation will give them the clear framework they need to do it. Without a domestic legal regime, Canadian companies face stark choices: wait indefinitely or take their innovation and jobs abroad. That is a choice this legislation ensures they would never face. Why does launch matter so much? Satellites are critical infrastructure woven into daily life. When a ship threads through fog in the St.”
“It will also help us rely less on foreign launch sites and build a stronger, more sovereign role in getting satellites into space. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians are turning ambition into capability, developing launch vehicles and spaceports, refining the engines that will lift them and building the satellites that will strengthen our economy and protect our sovereignty. These innovators are ready. Their talent is world-class, but they are held back, not by a lack of vision or capability, but by the absence of a modern legal framework that allows them to launch from home. Today, with the Canadian space launch act, we hand them the key. Today, we unleash the innovation engine.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin . Today I rise in support of legislation that will drive a level of investment in Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish that has not been seen in generations. The future of the space industry in Canso holds tremendous potential for our riding and our province. Over the next few minutes, I will speak to the deeply positive impacts that Bill C-28 would have. First, I would like to start off with a little bit of gratitude for our government and for our federal government making a historic, $200-million investment in Nova Scotia, in my riding, to help establish a spaceport in Nova Scotia as a cornerstone of Canada's future satellite launches. This investment will create good jobs, support innovation and grow Atlantic Canada's role in a fast-growing global industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, by easing the financial strain on households, our government is empowering Canadians to shape a better future for their families and our country. This includes the $150-million food security fund through the regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them. This measure will help businesses absorb the costs associated with supply chain disruptions without passing the burden on to Canadians. Our government is taking bold actions right now to support the many Canadians who are feeling the financial sting of everyday expenses. Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering.”
“Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective today, April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief for Canadians. This temporary suspension of excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre fuel tank.”
“Combined, these measures mean that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 annually for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 annually for the next four years. The benefit is only one example of the many ways the government has the backs of Canadians. It is in addition to the existing benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. We are fulfilling the pledge to make life even more affordable for families. Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with the higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to elaborate on what the government is doing to help Canadians with their day-to-day costs. We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering it. The government is providing help to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to afford day-to-day necessities through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Specifically, we are providing a one-time top-up to be paid on June 5, which is equal to a 50% increase to the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This will deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to 12 million Canadians who currently get the GST credit. We are also increasing the value of the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. This will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the next five years.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have said in my remarks, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. We hear those concerns, and we take them seriously. I reaffirm that our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision, and that is why we are appealing it. The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability in land ownership while respecting aboriginal rights and title and the court process. That balance is essential, not only for property owners but for indigenous communities, municipalities and the country as a whole.”
“Canadians deserve a fair and impartial resolution. That is what the courts are designed to provide. This case goes beyond legal arguments; it concerns the framework that underpins our shared future. Canada's approach must be principled, respectful and clear. That is why we are pursuing this appeal, to seek legal clarity and legal certainty that rights are respected and that reconciliation continues to guide our actions. Our commitment is clear. We will work through the proper legal processes. We will uphold our obligations and we will continue to engage constructively with all parties. That is how we build certainty, stability and trust, values that are essential to Canada's future.”
“These implications are not limited to one province or one community. They could extend across the country. They touch on questions that go to the heart of how land is owned, transferred and managed in Canada. Let me emphasize in the strongest terms possible that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. We respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we remain fully committed to reconciliation. That commitment is unwavering. We respect the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's concern with the decision focuses on specific legal questions. Other parties may seek to have other issues resolved. This is a complex matter, and the courts are the proper forum for resolving these questions.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. With that said, our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision. Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance, and that is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. As this case is before the courts, I will be careful with my remarks. The principle of the validity of fee simple title is foundational to the certainty and stability of property rights in this country. It is a cornerstone of our legal system and of the confidence Canadians seek in land ownership. The decision of the court has potentially significant implications, including for private property rights.”
“Morgan Toney continues to inspire and make his community, his nation and all of Cape Breton proud. [ Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text: ] Welaliek, Morgan. Welukwen aq siawi' keleukw telatike nitap. [ Member provided the following translation: ] “Thank you, Morgan. You're doing great. Keep up the good work.””
“Mr. Speaker, there is exciting news for the music industry in Cape Breton. Morgan Toney has just won his first Juno Award, for traditional roots album of the year. He was honoured for his album “Heal the Divide”, which showcases the signature Mi'kmaltic genre, a blend of Mi'kmaq stories and Celtic tunes. From the small community of Wagmatcook, Morgan Toney's fiddle gets people stomping their feet or doing the traditional Mi'kmaq ko'jua dance. Morgan Toney stated that his win is dedicated to his late mother and that he always keeps her in his heart while creating music. Morgan records at the Barn Bhreagh studio in Baddeck with Keith Mullins, a studio known for promoting the Mi'kmaq language. Morgan always finds time to collaborate with others, kindly lending his fiddle to help other recording artists.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can agree that the Indian Act has challenges, that the Indian Act has created discrimination and that we need to move beyond the second-generation cut-off. However, there is no consensus out there on what the solution is. My question for the member opposite is this: If there is a community out there that does not want these amendments, if there is a community out there that wants something else, if there is a community that wants to do it themselves without Parliament and the Senate telling them how to run their communities, should we force this on them? Should they not be given the option to opt into something, as opposed to the Senate or Parliament saying they know what is best for that community?”
“By enforcing the central concept of consent in criminal law, this bill contributes to the objective in a concrete, legally meaningful way. Ultimately, Bill S-228 would ensure that our criminal law speaks clearly where clarity is required and reinforces that legally effective consent is the dividing line between lawful medical care and criminal violence. Where such consent is present, the law recognizes the procedure as legitimate. Where it is absent, the full protections of the Criminal Code will apply. Bill S-228 affirms the central role of consent in Canadian criminal law, clarifies the application of aggravated assault provisions, acknowledges the disproportionate harms experienced by indigenous women and girls, and supports Canada's commitment under the UNDRIP action plan. For these reasons, I urge all hon.”
“Rather, it clarifies that, when sterilization is performed without legally effective consent, that conduct constitutes our most serious form of assault. The bill also must be understood in the broadest context, which is that the disproportionate impact of coercion on indigenous women and diverse people has been documented and acknowledged. Clarifying the criminal law is therefore not only a matter of legal precision, but also part of Canada's broader efforts toward reconciliation. In respect to that, Bill S-228 is consistent with Canada's commitments under UNDRIP, which call for concrete measures to eliminate forced and coerced sterilization and to strengthen protections for productive autonomy and bodily integrity.”
“The common law may continue to recognize additional circumstances in which consent will not be applied for public policy reasons. Depending on that fact, at the same time, the court affirmed that the assault law will recognize consent for application of force that has social value, such as appropriate in consensual, surgical interventions. This balance is essential. The criminal law does not criminalize medical care; it is freely chosen and properly consented to. Indeed, it expressly recognizes the social and therapeutic value of appropriate surgical procedures, including sterilization procedures performed with valid consent. Bill S-228 preserves that distinction. It does not restrict access to voluntary sterilization procedures.”
“Any consent provided by a patient who is unable to appreciate the nature of the consequences of the act is not valid in law. This issue may arise where the patient is a child or where the patient has a cognitive impairment that affects their capacity to comprehend the procedure and its implication. These principles of voluntariness, knowledge and capacity are consistent with the consent standards applied in provincial and territorial health law across Canada, such that compliance with these standards protects health care providers from criminal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified the contours of consent for assault law purposes in its 1991 Jobidon decision. The court explained that the list of violating factors set out in subsection 265(3) is not exhaustive.”
“If a patient agrees to a sterilization procedure because they have been misled about its purpose, pressured by authority figures or made to believe that they have no real choice, the law will not recognize that agreement as legally effective consent. (1640) Consent also must go to the nature of the act, and the requirement implies a foundation of knowledge. Courts have described this as knowledge of the purpose of the operation, knowledge of the events that will occur and an understanding of the character of what is about to take place. In the context of sterilization, this means that the patient must be informed that the procedure will permanently prevent reproduction. Without that information, there is no legally effective consent. Finally, consent must be given by a person who has the ability to understand.”
“Legally effective consent must meet three fundamental criteria: It must freely be given, it must go to the nature of the act and it must be given by a person with the ability to understand what is being done. These requirements have been developed through the common law, some of which are reflected in subsection 265(3) of the Criminal Code. That provision sets out circumstances in which the law will not recognize any consent given. Specifically, the provision states that consent is not obtained in law “where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of” violence, threats of violence, “fraud” or “the exercise of authority”. The requirement that consent be freely given means there must be no fraud or duress.”
“The court clarified that the law of assault applies to any medical procedure carried out without the patient's legally effective consent, and because surgeries necessarily involve wounding or maiming the patient, they constitute aggravated assault if they are performed without legally effective consent. Bill S-228 therefore underscores the fact that sterilization procedures fall squarely within the established framework. This brings us to the core concept that governs the lawfulness of any medical procedure: legally effective consent. Under Canadian criminal law, the application of force does not constitute an assault where legally effective consent is present. However, consent in law has a precise meaning.”