Canada

Most Canadian provinces considered the idea of eugenics during the first part of the 20th century. Only Alberta and British Columbia ultimately passed laws that created eugenics programs, in 1928 and 1933 respectively. Although both provinces repealed their laws in the 1970s, 2,822 Albertans and over 200 British Columbians were sterilized through these programs. The original laws focused attention on people who were institutionalized under the Mental Health Act, meaning that people with mental disorders and those deemed mentally deficient were the primary targets for sterilization. In 1937 Alberta amended its Sexual Sterilization Act to remove the need for informed consent for sterilization subjects who were considered feebleminded. This amendment set Alberta apart from other jurisdictions throughout North America, which had or had added consent provisions.

The vast majority of people sterilized through the Canadian programs had been institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals or homes for people considered feebleminded, mentally deficient, or intellectually disabled. In 1942, however, Alberta changed its law again to move the eugenics program beyond the confines of institutions. As a result more children were identified in the community, at schools, and through public health visits. Canadian provinces and territories other than British Columbia and Alberta did not enact specific eugenics laws; however, several of them participated in eugenics. Nova Scotia, for example, did not legally sterilize people, but institutionalized women of child-bearing age who were considered unfit for motherhood, often on account of having given birth to illegitimate children. Quebec encouraged reproduction among its residents to bolster its population, and therefore its political power, as a form of positive eugenics. It did so by establishing baby bonuses and financial incentives for large families. Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all drafted sterilization laws, which were defeated in the 1930s as a growing wave of resistance formed, especially among Catholics. The Northwest Territories has yet a different experience, as sterilizations became very controversial in the 1970s, with some people claiming that these surgeries were being done involuntarily as an act of genocide against the Inuit people, and others suggesting that the high birth rate, combined with maternal and infant mortality meant that some Inuit women were requesting sterilizations as a form of birth control. The history of eugenics and reproduction touched every part of the country, but the meanings and practices varied considerably.

Motivations: Who & Why
The Canadian laws were considered progressive at the time that they came into effect. They had been supported by feminists, socialists, farmers, and Anglo-Saxon protestants who believed that Canada, and especially western Canada, could produce an ideal society by restricting fertility within certain groups of people and by encouraging it among others. In the first few decades of the program reformers in western Canada identified new immigrants as undermining the creation of an ideal Anglo-Saxon community, and families from Eastern Europe fared worst in assessments of intelligence and in public health surveys. As a result, a disproportionate number of Eastern Europeans were institutionalized and some were sterilized under the eugenics program. Over time, though, the target groups in Alberta shifted from immigrants, to orphaned and disabled children, to Métis and First Nations women. Men and boys were sterilized slightly less often than women, at 42%, but by the end of the program, Aboriginal women were the primary subjects of sterilization. These shifting targets suggest that the motivations behind the program had also changed over time.

Post-Eugenic Era
Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972, and British Columbia followed a year later. To date only one woman successfully sued the Alberta government in a case that revealed she had been wrongfully sterilized, due to a miscalculation in her intelligence score. Since then nearly 700 sterilization victims in Alberta sought compensation, and their cases were settled out of court. Although the eugenics programs officially ended, the practice of sterilization continues. For some, sterilization represents a form of voluntary contraception. The issue is more complicated, however, as parents or guardians seek sterilization for their disabled children. In the case of E (Mrs.) v. Eve in 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that individuals with intellectual disabilities did not have the right of self-determination, including the right to make choices about their reproduction. This case is a reminder that eugenic ideas continue to influence our understanding of reproductive rights, while for individuals with intellectual, mental or physical disabilities, those rights continue to be limited.

-Erika Dyck

  • McLaren, A. (1990). Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.

  • Dyck, E. (2013) Facing Eugenics: Reproduction, Sterilization and the Politics of Choice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Grekul, J., Krahn, H., & Odynak, D. (2004) “Sterilizing the ‘Feeble-minded’: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929-1972.” Journal of Historical Sociology 17, no. 4: 358-384.

Canada

Most Canadian provinces considered the idea of eugenics during the first part of the 20th century. Only Alberta and British Columbia ultimately passed laws that created eugenics programs, in 1928 and 1933 respectively. Although both provinces repealed their laws in the 1970s, 2,822 Albertans and over 200 British Columbians were sterilized through these programs. The original laws focused attention on people who were institutionalized under the Mental Health Act, meaning that people with mental disorders and those deemed mentally deficient were the primary targets for sterilization. In 1937 Alberta amended its Sexual Sterilization Act to remove the need for informed consent for sterilization subjects who were considered feebleminded. This amendment set Alberta apart from other jurisdictions throughout North America, which had or had added consent provisions.

The vast majority of people sterilized through the Canadian programs had been institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals or homes for people considered feebleminded, mentally deficient, or intellectually disabled. In 1942, however, Alberta changed its law again to move the eugenics program beyond the confines of institutions. As a result more children were identified in the community, at schools, and through public health visits. Canadian provinces and territories other than British Columbia and Alberta did not enact specific eugenics laws; however, several of them participated in eugenics. Nova Scotia, for example, did not legally sterilize people, but institutionalized women of child-bearing age who were considered unfit for motherhood, often on account of having given birth to illegitimate children. Quebec encouraged reproduction among its residents to bolster its population, and therefore its political power, as a form of positive eugenics. It did so by establishing baby bonuses and financial incentives for large families. Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all drafted sterilization laws, which were defeated in the 1930s as a growing wave of resistance formed, especially among Catholics. The Northwest Territories has yet a different experience, as sterilizations became very controversial in the 1970s, with some people claiming that these surgeries were being done involuntarily as an act of genocide against the Inuit people, and others suggesting that the high birth rate, combined with maternal and infant mortality meant that some Inuit women were requesting sterilizations as a form of birth control. The history of eugenics and reproduction touched every part of the country, but the meanings and practices varied considerably.

Motivations: Who & Why
The Canadian laws were considered progressive at the time that they came into effect. They had been supported by feminists, socialists, farmers, and Anglo-Saxon protestants who believed that Canada, and especially western Canada, could produce an ideal society by restricting fertility within certain groups of people and by encouraging it among others. In the first few decades of the program reformers in western Canada identified new immigrants as undermining the creation of an ideal Anglo-Saxon community, and families from Eastern Europe fared worst in assessments of intelligence and in public health surveys. As a result, a disproportionate number of Eastern Europeans were institutionalized and some were sterilized under the eugenics program. Over time, though, the target groups in Alberta shifted from immigrants, to orphaned and disabled children, to Métis and First Nations women. Men and boys were sterilized slightly less often than women, at 42%, but by the end of the program, Aboriginal women were the primary subjects of sterilization. These shifting targets suggest that the motivations behind the program had also changed over time.

Post-Eugenic Era
Alberta’s Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972, and British Columbia followed a year later. To date only one woman successfully sued the Alberta government in a case that revealed she had been wrongfully sterilized, due to a miscalculation in her intelligence score. Since then nearly 700 sterilization victims in Alberta sought compensation, and their cases were settled out of court. Although the eugenics programs officially ended, the practice of sterilization continues. For some, sterilization represents a form of voluntary contraception. The issue is more complicated, however, as parents or guardians seek sterilization for their disabled children. In the case of E (Mrs.) v. Eve in 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that individuals with intellectual disabilities did not have the right of self-determination, including the right to make choices about their reproduction. This case is a reminder that eugenic ideas continue to influence our understanding of reproductive rights, while for individuals with intellectual, mental or physical disabilities, those rights continue to be limited.

-Erika Dyck

  • McLaren, A. (1990). Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.

  • Dyck, E. (2013) Facing Eugenics: Reproduction, Sterilization and the Politics of Choice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Grekul, J., Krahn, H., & Odynak, D. (2004) “Sterilizing the ‘Feeble-minded’: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929-1972.” Journal of Historical Sociology 17, no. 4: 358-384.