Bill C-311

Violence Against Pregnant Women Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

Violence Against Pregnant Women Act

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved that Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to open what I seek to be a respectful debate on a private member's bill, Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding violence against pregnant women.

I stand this evening on behalf of pregnant women who have been and are facing violence while living in fear of injury or loss of their child. I stand humbly advocating on behalf of those who no longer breathe or have their voice and on behalf of their families, who have lost loved ones whose lives were taken in targeted violent crimes.

There are more than 80 cases in recent Canadian history of women who have been killed while pregnant. Each of these women was killed by men who knew they were pregnant. The killers intentionally sought to do harm to the pregnant women and, in many cases, end their pregnancies. As it stands at this moment, we in this place have failed them by not requiring sentencing judges to take these actions into account.

The violence against pregnant women act is simple. It would amend the Criminal Code to ensure that the act of knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are factored in as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes. For a perpetrator who has been identified and found guilty, the sentence must be required to match the crime.

Every one of us in this place carries the responsibility as legislators to do everything that we can in our roles to denounce and deter gender-based violence in all of its forms. Canada is failing its pregnant women and the children they have chosen to carry to term. Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, reflects our ability to fill this gap in the Criminal Code of Canada. The first question each of us in this place must answer to determine whether we seek to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women is this: Do we truly value women and their choice to be pregnant?

Jeff Durham and Sherry Goberdhan, who spoke to reporters this morning and were with us today, represent families who have been discouraged by the lack of will in this place to champion the choices of Cassie and Arianna to be pregnant and to raise Molly and Asaara.

Jeff said, “Part of what's been lost in this debate is viability of a woman's choice. Two sides of an option make up a choice. You can't protect only one and still call it a choice. It's crazy to me that the argument on one side is against the choice of a woman. I've been thinking about it a lot in terms of reproductive rights. Like, how can we call them reproductive rights and then not extend them to the ones that chose to reproduce. It is so absurd. Someone who believes that such a choice belongs to a woman should be the strongest advocate for something like this.

“The pro-choice community has become disillusioned. They are seeing themselves used as fodder for political gain by politicians, advocacy groups, media and the Prime Minister—all who refuse to value specifically protecting a woman's choice to be pregnant, to carry her child to term, to be protected from intimate partner violence, gender-based violence within Canada's Criminal Code.”

Jeff is not alone. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Canadians agree.

A position paper outlining six reasons to oppose this bill was sent to all parliamentarians, except me. The author, Joyce Arthur, executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, who supported this bill when it was part of Cassie and Molly’s law, has changed her mind and validates that change of heart with the following reasons.

First, she says the bill is redundant, as other clauses in the Criminal Code section can cover pregnant victims. In researching through many references of previous cases, I saw that a judge's discretion in using other clauses or choosing to see pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance is truly wanting.

I will give only two of many examples. The first if R v. Cunningham, 2023. It is another tragic case of someone attempting to end the life of a pregnant woman. The appeal seems to hinge on the unfairness of the sentence, but what is interesting is that there are no indications that the fact she was pregnant factored into the sentencing whatsoever.

There is also R v. Kormendy, 2019. The judge there said, “The trial judge did not address the significance of domestic violence, including the fact that the victim was pregnant with the respondent's child, as well as that the attack represented an obvious desire to kill her to solve his own problem of unexpected parenthood.”

Joyce Arthur also said that more effective measures are needed to address gender-based violence. I agree. I could not agree more. Any and every measure we can implement to better protect women when pregnant should be taken.

Last week, I had a call from a young woman who, while pregnant, feared for her life and the life of her child. With the challenges she is facing now, a limited income when food prices are skyrocketing, the inability to work because she wants to take care of her newborn, waiting for room in a shelter, finding a home she can afford, having all of her belongings, credit card and bank account stolen by her abusive and threatening husband, she is nothing short of a strong, determined and very brave woman.

Every measure we can implement to better facilitate pregnant women who are facing violence must be taken. This remarkable woman called me and thanked me for bringing forward the violence against pregnant women act.

And yet, what does Joyce Arthur say? She said that such protections could hypothetically include a degree of legal protection, but only if that would meet a real need according to the anti-gender based violence community, and only if the focus was on the pregnant person and their needs, and not on the pregnancy itself or the fetus.

Partner Jeff Durham, mother Sherry Goberdhan and this young woman who was assaulted and abused are clearly members of the anti-gender based violence community, and their extended families are clearly members of the anti-gender based violence community, yet their voices are being denied by what is truly an extreme claim that only one choice matters.

I encourage those who vote in this place to be brave enough to go to mollymatters.org to see and hear of the many more victims of gender-based violence who are shunned by this statement, which has further traumatized those being told they and their loved ones have no place within the anti-gender based violence community. They are the ones who have faced all this violence.

Joyce Arthur says that no anti-violence group is known to support this bill, and then she goes on to list organizations she is aware of that support the violence against pregnant women act. She defines them as anti-choice groups and implies that because they support this bill they are not anti-violence groups.

Merriam-Webster defines anti-violence as “acting against or opposing violence”, where violence is defined as “the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy” or “an instance of violent [harmful or destructive] treatment or procedure”.

Just as the majority of the pro-choice community is being misrepresented in these reasons not to support Bill C-311, the same can be said of the pro-life community, yet the desire to see pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance is supported by the vast majority of Canadians across the entire spectrum.

The bill has received and is receiving endorsements from other cultural and faith-based groups that support its intent to denounce and deter violence, such as the Overseas Friends of India Canada and the Pakistani Canadian Cultural Association. Pregnancy counselling centres, safe spaces for women who are facing violence during pregnancy, support denouncing and deterring that violence by seeing the violence against pregnant women act supported unanimously in this place, but what is the current government doing? It wants to revoke their charitable status.

On its website, Pregnancy Care Canada states, “for a woman to truly have a choice regarding her unexpected pregnancy, she must have authentic options to choose from—including the option to continue her pregnancy.”

I encourage those who will vote on this bill to review the findings in the 2016 Nanos poll “Canadians’ opinions on crimes against pregnant women”. Nick was surprised that it clearly indicated that 70% of all Canadians and 73% of all Canadian women want to see pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in Canada’s Criminal Code. They believe in it and want it to happen.

Joyce Arthur says that the motivation behind this bill is suspect. Where have I heard that before? Where are we hearing it today? It is on all kinds of social media, painting the bill as dangerous. When she says that the motivation behind the bill is suspect, what she is really saying is that the bill is suspect because it was put forward by me. What a demeaning attitude toward an issue that is so important to women in this country, yet she supported this very bill herself when it was part of my previous bill that called for protections for pregnant women in the Criminal Code. She saw that unity among most Canadians existed then for what has now been written as the violence against pregnant women act, period.

Joyce Arthur expressed support for my previous bill, but only if the aggravating circumstances portion was kept. That is what Bill C-311 is. At this point, she was onside with most Canadians. She stated, “Because pregnant women are more vulnerable to violence and abuse than non-pregnant women, they fit into the reasoning for aggravating factors.... ARCC would be willing to support it, especially if it might help give some redress and comfort to victims and their families.”

I can tell the House that victims and families across this nation have sensed anything but support from the Liberal government, when they have chosen to carry their children and face these kinds of violent circumstances that were no choice of theirs. It is deplorable. Yet, she did not stand in the gap and challenge the government of the day to support the bill going to committee to consider this amendment. I wonder why.

Unfortunately, and we will witness to what extent in further debate today, current members of Parliament either support or fail to represent the view of the majority of Canadians on the violence against pregnant women act.

Why do supposed anti-gender based violence organizations and politicians refuse to prioritize the safety and security of women when they are pregnant? What is going on there? Why do they choose to turn a deaf ear to the vast majority of Canadians, who want to see this bill passed? What is the motivation for that? Canadians have woken up to what some of that motivation is.

What I find most incomprehensible is when women fail women. There is no justification, for any reason, for any woman, including in this place, to sacrifice the choice of another woman to carry her child to term, to deny their value, to deny what we could do in this place to bring further protections to those women who are attacked, who are killed, who face all kinds of violence. We are ignoring them in this place for another agenda.

Joyce Arthur then says that the bill is already being used to promote fetal rights. I have something to say to that. It is also being used by those who deny fetal rights, and that is wrong on all levels. The majority of Canadians support this, which means that, across the entire spectrum of Canadians, whatever their views are, they see this as something that is absolutely crucial when a woman is pregnant, when she is carrying a child. I do not know about others, but with all these gender reveals, what do they do? They say, “I am having a baby, and I am calling him or her this.” Arianna named Asaara. Jeff and Cassie named Molly. This is normal behaviour, and we are acting as though it is something we do not want to see happen, that we protect these women.

Again, along with other significant findings, the 2016 Nanos poll “Canadians' opinions on crimes against pregnant women”, which members can look up, indicates that 70% of all Canadians and 73% of women in Canada want to see pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in Canada's Criminal Code.

We, as legislators, must respond to the clear consensus of Canadians. It is fully within Parliament's role to amend Canada's Criminal Code to ensure that the act of knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman is factored in as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

I have a couple more thoughts.

Joyce Arthur ends with this final point of her six points, that two Liberal MPs immediately saw through the bill. Really? They saw through the bill. Apparently, today, a whole bunch more saw through the bill. At a press conference this morning, while mine was on, they were seeing through the bill. These two female Liberal MPs and others who are taking that stand, turning a blind eye to this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, it was reported earlier today that the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, will support Bill C-311. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if she can confirm that in the House, because the well-known anti-abortion group Campaign Life Coalition was very surprised by this news. It said that it was happily surprised, but even it was surprised by this news.

I would also like to ask my hon. colleague if the Conservative leader agrees with her statement that the lack of abortion law in Canada constitutes a “legal void”. These are the arguments that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville put forward to justify her bill, Bill C-311. Does the Conservative leader agree with that?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, my leader supports this bill. My leader support the bill because it is reasonable and it reflects the views of Canadians, of valuing family. I was asked, at my press conference, if that means that everyone on my side of the floor is obviously going to support it.

[An hon. member]

A legal void.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I will get to that.

What I said to him, as we discussed this, was that we are different in the Conservative Party, very different. People see the difference. I said that I do not want anyone on my side of the floor in this party to have to feel what every other person in the House experiences when there is a vote that their leader has an attitude about. I said that I want every member of my party to have the freedom to vote their conscience. That is something that is dead in the House, except for over here.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague from Yorkton-Melville talked about a majority of Canadians. She is certainly not talking about a majority of Quebeckers. She brought up the Conservative difference; I am talking about the Quebec difference.

Recently, Quebec's minister responsible for the status of women expressed concern for women's right to abortion.

Does my colleague realize that her bill is truly a threat and could lead to a major setback for women's rights, which have been ardently defended by Quebec women for many, many years?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is pretty typical. It is hogwash.

These people are in government. They can make whatever decision they want in regard to abortion access. The majority of Canadians want access to abortion, but the majority of Canadians also want protection for women who choose to raise their children, to carry them to term.

That is what Jeff was saying, who was a pro-choice person, as was Cassie. He asked what has happened here. He said that the definition of pro-choice has been hijacked and he wants it back, because he lost Molly and he lost Cassie and they are totally disregarded by that community and by this government and the Bloc.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is very passionate about the issue, but I do not think it is the issue at hand. In fact, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill and is urging MPs to oppose the bill. At the same time, anti-choice organizations, including the pro-life coalition, are cheering on the introduction of the bill because they see it as a step toward establishing legal protection for fetuses, which would pave the way for restriction on abortion.

I do not want to go back to a time when we had to use coat hangers in back lanes to get abortions. I do not want to go back to a time when we had to fight for little children who have been victims of sexual assault, including 10-year-olds, to have access to abortion, as we are seeing in the States.

I am going to ask a yes-or-no question. Does my hon. colleague support a woman's right to a safe abortion?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is time for this House, which has its own agenda, to stop gaslighting Canadians. It is time. There is a desire across this nation, regardless of perspectives. I can assure the member of that because I see and hear it all the time. A lot of the pro-choice community is still very nervous—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C‑311, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

At first glance, this bill seems like a well-intentioned measure to better protect pregnant women. However, a closer look at the bill's language and genesis suggests that its real purpose is to reopen the abortion debate in Canada.

Conservative Bill C-311 is the most recent iteration of a number of similar previous private members' bills. In 2016, the same Conservative member introduced Bill C-225, which proposed to add an offence for injuring or causing the death of a “preborn child” while committing an offence. That proposed legislation was defeated due to the concerns that it would have conferred rights on fetuses, thereby compromising abortion rights in this country.

While that Conservative bill explicitly mentioned preborn children, Bill C-311 seems to take a more indirect approach, but to arrive at the exact same result. I understand why my colleague felt it necessary to be so indirect in her tactics to further her goal. After all, the Conservative member's previous attempt, through Bill C-225, was soundly defeated, with members of all other parties in this House voting to reject that Conservative bill. Not only that, but over 20 Conservative MPs could not even bring themselves to vote for it. A few Conservative members even voted against it, including the member for Wellington—Halton Hills; I think this underlines why so many of us in this House think so highly of that particular member.

Now I would like to say a bit more about the reasons I oppose this Conservative bill. There are two major reasons.

First, this bill appears to be designed to serve as a stepping stone towards reopening the abortion debate in Canada, with the goal of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could we have silence while the hon. member is making her speech? There was silence while the sponsor of the bill was giving her speech, and I would like to ask that the same courtesy be accorded to the current speaker.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill appears to be designed to serve as a stepping stone towards reopening the abortion debate in Canada, with the goal of conferring rights on the fetus.

Let me be clear. Our government firmly believes that the right to abortion is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will never compromise on that right.

Second, this bill contains errors that render it simply ineffective at achieving its intended purpose. I will explain how the bill would actually reduce the legal tools available to pregnant women who have been assaulted.

I recognize, of course, that violence against pregnant victims is a serious problem and a form of gender-based violence that requires a tough criminal response. The Criminal Code already includes numerous offences of general application that we can rely on in the context of gender-based violence.

Depending on the wrongdoing in question, offences such as assault, sexual assault and uttering threats could apply, as could other offences such as criminal harassment, which applies in cases involving ongoing behaviour that affects the victim's sense of physical or psychological safety. Aggravating factors already exist that can be invoked to increase penalties when the violence is committed against a pregnant victim. The relevant case law indicates that these cases are treated seriously by the courts.

In addition to a strong criminal response, I am sure we can all agree that strong non-legislative measures are also needed to address all forms of gender-based violence. That is why our government continues to implement its strategy entitled “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”. This strategy focuses on preventing gender-based violence, supporting survivors and promoting the necessary legal systems.

I want to speak more directly about the right to choose and abortion rights here in Canada. The Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville has stated in this House that her bill is meant to address the “legal void” around abortion in Canada.

The Conservative member created her own web page for this particular bill where she linked to a pro-life petition, which she also presented in this chamber in March. That petition advocates for Bill C-311, arguing that “preborn children” should be considered “victims”. This language has garnered public support from anti-abortion organizations that seek to strip reproductive freedom from women here in Canada.

When someone tells us who they are and what they are doing, we have to believe them. Just last week in this House, the member for Yorkton—Melville said, “Canada has no abortion law and it is still a huge discussion in our country.” Where is this still a huge discussion? Only the Conservatives want to discuss abortion law in this country. There is certainly no doubt that it is the Conservatives reopening this debate on the floor of the House of Commons here today.

Pro-choice organizations, including Abortion is Healthcare, a group from the sponsor's home province of Saskatchewan, and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, have spoken out against this Conservative bill. Abortion is Healthcare called Bill C-311 a bill that is “slowly moving the fetus toward personhood.”

To be clear, abortion is health care in this country. A woman's right to choose is hers and hers alone. The government has no role to play in that decision. We, the Liberal government, will always stand with Canadian women in order to protect their rights.

For those who feel that the Conservatives' reopening of this debate in Canada is not something they should be worried about, I would like to share a part of the conversation on feminist policy that our Deputy Prime Minister had this weekend with Secretary Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton said, “there is a very significant historical struggle going on, about whether we move forward or the clock is turned back”. I raise this because just across our southern border, we see the clock getting turned back. We witnessed U.S. Supreme Court justices and politicians attempt the erasure of decades of feminists' struggle for a woman's right to make decisions about her own body. We know that Canadians fought tirelessly for this same right in our country, and we will never let it be weakened.

Finally, I would like to explain why this bill would actually endanger pregnant women. Bill C-311 would reduce the legal tools available to people who are assaulted while pregnant. Sentencing courts already treat the fact that a victim is pregnant as an aggravating factor in the common law. The factor that currently applies is similar to Bill C-311, but it provides broader protection, because it does not require evidence that the offender knew that the victim was pregnant. Therefore, I am extremely concerned that the bill's proposed aggravating factor could result in sentencing courts refusing to treat a victim's pregnancy as an aggravating factor in cases where there is no evidence that the offender knew the victim was pregnant.

I do not want pregnant women to suffer from less protection under the law because of this ill-conceived bill, Bill C-311. This Conservative bill would be a step backwards for pregnant women, for all women and for all Canadians. I will be voting against this bill and urge every single member of this House to vote against this Conservative bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, rising this evening to speak to Bill C‑311 is utterly exasperating. The Criminal Code amendment in the bill would force the courts to consider the fact that an assault victim is a pregnant woman an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

I realize this may seem like a sensitive issue, but, as usual, the Conservatives want to reopen the abortion debate. This bill is the latest in a long line of attempts to grant the fetus legal status in order to undermine women's right to control their own bodies.

I will start by explaining the pernicious effects of this bill. Then I will go over the Conservatives' history of back-door attempts. Lastly, I will remind the House about this difficult struggle for women.

First, without explicitly naming the fetus, this bill seeks to create an aggravating circumstance when the offence of assault is committed against a pregnant woman. If passed, the Conservative proposal could strengthen the premise that the legislator's intent is to grant the fetus implicit legal status. The Bloc Québécois opposes any attempt at such legislation, which would set women's rights back.

It is important to point out that the Criminal Code already enables judges imposing a sentence to consider as an aggravating factor an offence that has a significant impact on the victim, considering their personal circumstances, including their health. The victim's personal circumstances can include pregnancy, and the court can consider that as an aggravating factor under the circumstances.

Femicides against pregnant women have been documented by Canadian police forces since 2005. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005, 12 pregnant women were killed by their intimate partner, and eight pregnant women were killed by someone other than their intimate partner. Let us remember that. Not one more.

In a 2021 ruling, the Court of Quebec examined this issue when sentencing a man who pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-wife. The judge was unequivocal about the consequences of committing such a crime against a pregnant woman. Her condition makes her more vulnerable to assault and less able to defend herself. The Quebec and Canadian courts are therefore inclined to consider a victim's personal circumstances, namely, a pregnancy, when handing down a sentence.

Our society has a duty to punish violence against women, especially violence against pregnant women, but the mechanisms to do so exist already. While it may have been tabled in good faith, the amendment in the Conservative bill brings nothing new to the table. However, we have strong reason to believe that it may be part of an anti-abortion strategy.

Second, it is important to point out that the Conservative member is continuing her ideological war against women's reproductive health.

During the previous Parliament, she sponsored a bill to criminalize abortions performed on the basis of an unborn child's sex. Despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims about being pro-choice, his caucus is clearly divided on the issue and still includes anti-choice members.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes Bill C‑311 given the bill's ulterior motive of securing legal status for fetuses. Bill C‑311 is an anti-abortion bill. The Bloc will make no compromise when it comes to defending women's right to control their own bodies, their right to choose, and supporting free, accessible and safe abortion services.

The Conservatives are trying to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. This bill is nothing less than an attempt to amend Canadian law in favour of their outdated anti‑abortion position, which Quebeckers have rejected. If passed, this legislative amendment could set a dangerous precedent if a Canadian court were to rule on the issue of the right to abortion.

Our elected members have a responsibility to carry out their duties honestly and to state their real intentions when they engage in dialogue on behalf of the constituents they represent. This is necessary for a healthy democracy. Obfuscating the debate for purely ideological purposes undermines the effective functioning of our democracy. These tactics need to be recognized, called out and stopped.

The Bloc Québécois demands that the Leader of the Conservative Party publicly recognize that Bill C-311 is just a partisan strategy to attack abortion, that he call on his members to oppose it and that he rein in the member for Yorkton—Melville. If he does not, if he chooses instead to vote for Bill C‑311, as he announced today, it says a lot about the influence of religious lobby groups on the Conservatives. In Quebec, we believe in secularism, which takes religion out of governance.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has previously presented anti-abortion bills. In 2016, she introduced Bill C-225, the protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, also known as Cassie and Molly's law, which would have handed out a life sentence to anyone who “directly or indirectly causes the death of [a] preborn child”.

Is it not curious that the member for Yorkton—Melville never openly attacks the right to abortion, but that her efforts are somehow always directed at making this medical act a criminal offence with harsh sentences?

For all these reasons, we recommend that members vote against Bill C‑311.

It is also worth noting that the issue of selective abortion is not new in federal politics. A Conservative member moved a motion to condemn it in 2012, reopening the abortion debate in the process. That motion came after Conservative Stephen Woodworth's motion on the rights of the fetus that called for a parliamentary committee to study at what point a fetus should be considered a human being for the purposes of enforcing Criminal Code provisions.

These tactics, aiming to surreptitiously criminalize abortion, were carried out despite former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign promise to not reopen the abortion debate.

Third, I would remind members that women's right to access abortion in Canada is intimately connected to Dr. Henry Morgentaler's fight to legalize this medical treatment. Prior to 1969, performing abortions was illegal in Canada. Women died trying to perform their own abortions with knitting needles and coat hangers. Do we really want to go back to that?

In 1969, Parliament made several important amendments to the Criminal Code. The section on abortion, section 273 at the time, specified when an abortion could legally be performed. The section set out criminal sanctions for doctors who did not respect the strict rules.

That same year, Dr. Henry Morgentaler opened his first clinic in Montreal, where he performed abortions after doctors and groups had debated whether or not to approve it. A year later, he was charged with performing illegal abortions. After his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1975, he served a 10-month sentence in prison.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. In 1983, Dr. Morgentaler, along with two other doctors, was charged with performing illegal abortions at Dr. Morgentaler's clinic in Toronto. Although complex, the case rests primarily on one specific point of law, namely, whether the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code infringed in an unjustified way a woman's right “to life, liberty and security of the person” as guaranteed by section 7 of the charter.

Although the ruling is also complex, the court concluded that the abortion section of the Criminal Code infringed a woman's right to security of the person, that the process by which the woman was deprived of that right was not in accord with fundamental justice, and that the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable.

In conclusion, over 30 years after abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the Conservatives are pursuing their anti-choice militancy by tabling a bill like this one in Parliament. Their attacks on women's rights are a political manoeuvre to pander to the religious right.

The Bloc Québécois must firmly resist the Conservatives' attacks on the integrity of women and their hard-won right to control their own bodies.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not pleased to have to rise today to speak on Bill C-311, another attack on a woman's right to choose, another attack on abortion as health care, another attack on abortion rights as human rights, which is something that women, in particular, led the way to have so that we would not go back to the dark times of what has been mentioned so many times today: back-alley abortions where women died bleeding to death; gruesome. We are talking about violence, and I cannot think of anything more violent than restricting a woman's right to health care, including the right to access a safe abortion.

Bill C-311 would amend the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes. However, we know, as has been indicated over and over in this debate, that these changes are, in fact, unnecessary as judges already have the ability to apply more significant penalties for aggravating circumstances under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

In fact, no anti-violence organization has asked for this legislation. As somebody who has been on the frontline fighting against gender-based violence for many decades, I find it insulting to conflate an attempt to attack women's reproductive rights with true actions to end the ongoing crisis of gender-based violence. The federal government can and should pursue other ways of addressing gender-based violence, including reversing the plan to cut $150 million to women's shelters in September. If we want to protect women, including women who are pregnant, we need to make sure that they have a safe place to go. Let us not talk about the safety of women when that is not what we are really talking about, when we are attacking a woman's right to make a choice about her bodily autonomy.

I call on all members of the House to instead focus their attention on pushing all levels of government to implement the 231 calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and strengthening the national action plan to end gender-based violence by adding timelines and accountability measures. Why are we not discussing that today? Why are we discussing a bill that would threaten a woman's right to health care, which includes a safe abortion? This is disturbing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. whip for the opposition on a point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a specific bill, and now speaker after speaker, including the present one is talking about irrelevant issues. There is nothing in this bill about health care—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that there is quite a bit of leeway in how members approach bills—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I am asking, Madam Speaker: Do you find this relevant?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have not listened to the past two minutes or so as I was in discussion with a table officer. However, before that, I thought it was relevant to the bill in question. I will pay close attention henceforth.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, anti-choice organizations, on the other hand, are cheering on the introduction of the bill. They see it as a step forward in establishing legal protection for fetuses, which would pave the way for legal restrictions on abortion. If the bill passes, it would be a victory for those who want to limit abortion rights and would not do anything to meaningfully address gender-based violence.

I am sorry to hear that the member for Carleton has not advanced in his position on women's rights and is actively supporting this legislation. He has a history of supporting legislation that violates a woman's right to choose. I would add that the member for Carleton also has a history of supporting individuals, including Jordan Peterson, who attack the trans community He also has a history of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I need to interrupt the hon. member.

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, she is not referring to the bill at all. She is defaming and abusing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre was referring to the bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

She was referring to Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has absolutely nothing to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is debate.

The hon. member was referring to the bill two minutes ago, and I was listening. She was referring to the bill, and she is using arguments she is free to use to make her points.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

This has nothing to do with this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. members have a certain capacity to use arguments to defend their points, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is doing.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

I know the topic is sensitive, but ever since the debate started, we have had to endure what we might describe as vocal interference from the Conservatives.

I consider it my parliamentary right to be able to listen to the debate without disruption. In my opinion, this crosses a line and intervention may be appropriate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is a different matter.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is rising on a point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think you would agree with me it is my right as a member of Parliament to raise a point of order, bring it to the Speaker's attention when I think it is appropriate, and I will not be shut down—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Mirabel was not referring to rising on points of order. I think the hon. member was referring to comments that were being made while other members were speaking.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton has a history of supporting anti-choice legislation that impacts a woman's right to choose, including, now, his support of Bill C-311. He also has a history of backing up and holding up folks such as Jordan Peterson, who has spoken out aggressively against the trans community and its members' right to bodily autonomy. This is about bodily autonomy and the right to choose. It is very much a part of the debate.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill, saying “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill and urges MPs to oppose the bill as well...The bill is redundant.” It goes on to say that the anti-choice movement is using it as a vehicle to advance fetal rights, saying, “Several anti-choice groups have been promoting this Bill C-311 as a means to recognize two victims. They are looking for a route to establish fetal personhood in law, and if this bill passes, they would leverage the bill for that purpose”.

This is very much an anti-choice bill. This is not coming from me, although there have been points of order raised. I know what I am saying might be troubling, but I want to let people know that the NDP opposes Bill C-311. We are committed to fighting for the reproductive rights of all Canadians. We oppose, and I am proud that we oppose, anything that restricts these rights, and we support expanding access to abortion services, removing barriers and protecting the right of women and gender-diverse people to make decisions about their own bodies.

That is what this debate is about tonight. From my perspective, and we have certainly heard from several experts in the field, this bill is the latest attempt in a long line of attempts by anti-choice Conservative MPs to undermine Canadians' reproductive rights. I know not all Conservative MPs are anti-choice, and I urge them to vote against the bill. It is unfortunate the Leader of the Conservative Party is supporting anti-choice legislation.

We are opposing the bill, as it does not provide pregnant women with additional protection, but it does provide anti-choice MPs and organizations a new tool to promote the legal restrictions on abortion.

Let us look at what is happening south of us. I am worried that we will have, just like what is happening in the States, 10-year-old girls who were victims of sexual assault being forced to carry babies to term. Do we want a country that forces that kind of abuse on children? New Democrats are going to resist, vocally, any sort of attempt to limit abortion rights. We could ensure that a pregnant woman and others who experience gender-based violence are safe. That is not what this bill is about.

We could ensure that pregnant women are safe without undermining reproductive rights and the right to bodily autonomy for anybody, including the trans community. We know abortion rights are under attack. This is a real threat, even in this country. We must do more than oppose bad legislation. We already need to improve, for example, in real time, access to this right. There are places in Canada where people cannot access an abortion.

We have to ensure that we do not just recognize that human right, but that we ensure all women have access to the right. We know that Conservatives cannot be trusted on this issue. We know that. They have had several attempts to undermine women's and gender-diverse individuals' right to choose. We know that many Conservatives MPs have introduced and supported anti-choice bills that would undermine Canadians' right to access a safe abortion.

Quite frankly, the Liberals have talked a good game, but their record is deeply underwhelming. While they pay lip service to defending abortion rights, they still have not removed the charitable status from anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres, and they do not enforce the Canada Health Act when provinces fail to uphold the right to access abortions.

They need to take action, not words, to ensure that a woman's right to health care, is available. Abortions are health care. We are going to continue to hold the government to account.

I will continue to watch the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, who is actively supporting a bill that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock has the floor.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, because I thought that is what we would be debating tonight. However, what I have been listening to is far from that. The speakers have gone far afield in their discussion of a bill that is squarely before them.

I want to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this important legislation. It is my honour to second it at this stage of debate. I will speak to this bill, not some other bill or bills, or a history of bills. We are talking about Bill C-311, which would amend the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman would be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

I support this bill because mothers who have faced and are facing violent assaults need to know that they are heard and that the pain and depression caused by harm to their babies are not left unseen by others. I have fought for women's rights all my career as a lawyer, especially during my career as a family lawyer, and now as a politician. This bill is about the rights of pregnant women, no more and no less.

I am the mother of four children who I have been fortunate to raise into adulthood, but I was pregnant five times. My last child, a boy named Mackenzie, or little Mack for short, never got the chance to know his family, work, speak, go to school, play with friends or grow up. His waiting family, which was me, his dad, his brother and three sisters, never got to meet him. We lost little Mack halfway through my pregnancy because of the negligence of an interning doctor who wrongly handled an amniocentesis procedure and suffocated him in utero.

At the time, his loss sent me into a deep situational depression for months. I was off work for the first time in my adult life, and I grieved his passing desperately. I still do many years later. Because of this tragic event in my own life, I know and understand how the deliberate act of a person who knows that someone is pregnant and does harm to them and their baby impacts a mother and her family.

It is well documented that pregnant women in Canada are easy targets for violent assaults, yet the consequences of these offences have not increased. Just this year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a seven-year sentence for an offender who stabbed the pregnant mother of his unborn child in the neck and left her for dead. The mother lived, but the baby did not. This violent attacker's sentence was upped to 15 years when an appeal judge pointed out that the initial sentence did not address the issue of domestic violence or that the victim was pregnant with his baby. A violent crime against a pregnant woman needs to be treated as the serious crime that it is. Right now, criminal sentences in Canada do not consider harm done to a pregnant woman when an assault is committed.

Nelson Mandela said, “Safety and security don't just happen. They are the result of collective consensus and public investment.” Violence against women, especially pregnant women, is not a private family issue. It is a public safety and security issue, and it needs the urgent attention of this House.

Among Canadian women who have reported being abused by an intimate partner during pregnancy, 40% said that the abuse began during pregnancy. In recent years, there have been more than 70 cases in which pregnant women have been murdered, and the effect of the death of the unborn child was not a factor at sentencing.

The story of Tashina General from Brantford is particularly disheartening. In 2008, a Brantford man strangled Tashina to death. She was his 21-year-old pregnant girlfriend. He then attempted to hide Tashina's body by burying her in a shallow grave. He committed this gruesome and horrific crime against Tashina, as the evidence came out, simply because he did not want to bear the responsibility of being a father, despite Tashina's choice to be a mother.

Only eight years later, this murderer was set free. Tashina's grandmother, Norma General, still wonders what her great-grandson would have looked like and what kind of personality he would have had. She never had the opportunity to hold her first great-grandchild because of the despicable actions of a misogynistic killer.

It is not only intimate partner violence to which pregnant women are vulnerable. Pregnant women are also the target of unprovoked attacks by strangers. Last year on Vancouver Island, a pregnant woman walking down the street with her four-year-old daughter had a brick thrown at her stomach in a random attack. The fact that the victim was pregnant was not seen as an aggravating factor. I will let that sink in.

In another case, a pregnant woman in Surrey was attacked at a bank. An unknown man approached her from behind and violently threw her to the ground. Women who are pregnant are vulnerable, and they should be treated as vulnerable when it comes to sentencing. Offenders will often cite an unplanned pregnancy or the stress caused by having to potentially financially support the baby as excuses for these crimes.

The uncaring government has turned its back on women who choose to have a child. Its members are blinded by differences with the member for Yorkton—Melville on other matters, and that is blinding them to this bill. A vote against this bill is a vote against choice and women, and it would be misogynistic. They say that they are for choice, but only if we agree with that choice, and that is no choice at all.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the first hour of debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, there was a lot of push-back by the Liberals and the NDP on issues not in the bill. The lack of care and rigour in this debate should be distressing to Canadians who are paying attention at home.

It is abundantly clear that this legislation is about one thing, which is protecting vulnerable women through a Criminal Code amendment. It is very important that this debate centres on what is before us. We are looking to consistency in sentencing across the country as an objective so that pregnancy, as an aggravating factor, is no longer discretionary but mandatory to consider.

I will read the bill in its entirety into the record so there is clarity for all those following the debate.

Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women), states, beginning with the preamble:

Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing;

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

The short title states, “This Act may be cited as the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act.”

Under “Criminal Code” it states:

Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,

(ii.‍3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim,

That is it. There is a preamble, a short title, and brief amendments to beef up sentencing if a violent crime is committed against a pregnant woman. This is common-sense legislation that protects women who choose to carry their baby to term.

Nowhere in this legislation is there any reference to the unborn or reproductive issues. Making this debate about something other than protecting women is unfair and uncaring. This is where the their fake feminism is exposed.

Just last week, it was reported that Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium security prison. Conservatives brought forward a unanimous consent motion calling for an immediate return of this brutal serial rapist and killer to a maximum security prison. We were shouted down by the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands, and that made the intentions of the Liberals clear. They have decided to defend one of the most disgusting men in Canadian history, rather than his female victims and their families. This is misogyny.

When the Liberals vote against Bill C-311, they will be voting against women and against choice. They will once again be protecting violent men, not vulnerable women. Conservatives are on the side of women and victims.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member attributed something that I apparently did yesterday to me. I certainly did not do that. The member might want to reflect on that.

The next time, before she makes accusations, she might want to know what she is talking about.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is descending into a fair amount of debate.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock is rising on the same point of order.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the unanimous consent motion was called. The member said “no”. I rarely make a mistake about what the member does.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was not me who said “no”. This member should apologize, because she is lying right now.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just called me a liar in this House, and then walked out. Now he is back.

That is not only unparliamentary language. We can all check Hansard and see what happened. He—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Check Hansard then before you speak next time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the floor; that this member is shouting over me when I have the floor is also unparliamentary. He is a disgrace.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for saying that the member was lying. What the member is saying is not true.

She should check Hansard before she makes that accusation in this House, because what she is saying is simply and categorically false.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that member just turned to me, made a face and gave the finger to me. I do not even know how you categorize that in the House of Commons.

[Some hon. members]

To all of us.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he did it to all of us and specifically to me. That member should be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms. He should be thrown out of the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to take a break for a second here, and I am going to consult. I was just consulting with the table officers, so I did not see what happened. What I am going to do is review the videotapes, because cameras are on all the time. We will review those cameras. We will go in back and look at it.

I will remind people that we are in the House of Commons, and we should respect each other at all times, even though we disagree, vehemently sometimes, on issues that are before us. To accuse and flip the bird or give the finger is probably something that should not be seen in this House at any time.

I am going to go to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, and then I will go back to the hon. Conservative whip.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I was coming into the Chamber right at that moment. I can tell you that I did see the member for Kingston and the Islands make an objectionable sign with his finger to the opposition.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly saw the member for Kingston and the Islands give the finger, which is a symbol for a very specific phrase. Again, I would agree with my colleague that an apology is in order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

All right, since I cannot ask someone who might not be here to do something, I will go back and review it—

[An hon. member]

He is here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

How about we go back to the item that we are supposed to be dealing with? We are going to go back and look at the video. We will take into consideration the things that we heard. Then we will come up with a response as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Brampton South.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-311, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville.

I am proud to stand with my NDP and Bloc colleagues and with Canadian women across our great country—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I apologize. Before we really get started, I know the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to stand on something.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the frustration that I exhibited in the last few moments, but I want to reiterate that it was not me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that what the members are indicating that I did, I did do. I unreservedly apologize for displaying my frustration that way.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-311, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville.

I am proud to stand with my NDP and Bloc colleagues and with Canadian women across our great country in opposition to this Conservative bill, Bill C-311. This is a thinly veiled attempt to reopen Canada's abortion debate. I want to be clear that the government firmly condemns all forms of violence against women, including against pregnant women, and strongly supports a woman's right to choose.

Throughout debate on the bill before us, we have heard Conservatives allege that this is not about abortion. I find this perplexing, because the sponsor herself has connected the dots. Therefore, members should not just take my word for it. We can review what the sponsor has said about her bill.

The member for Yorkton—Melville rose in the House to advocate for Bill C-311; in the same breath, she said, “Canada has no abortion law.” She called this a “legal void” and argued that “preborn children” should be considered victims. The sponsor also linked a so-called pro-life petition on her website in conjunction with the bill. We are listening to the Conservative members across the aisle, and we hear them loud and clear. This is about abortion. I will also remind colleagues that anti-abortion organizations have praised Bill C-311, claiming that this legislation “affirms the humanity of the unborn.”

We have seen what happened to abortion rights just south of our border. On this side of the House, we stand in solidarity with American women who have seen elements of their reproductive health care stripped away from them, as well as with those who are fighting to restore abortion rights. We will always protect Canadian women's reproductive freedom. We will not let them down.

I am speaking in this House tonight from a unique perspective, as a member of both the health committee and the status of women committee. This dual role allows me to witness first-hand the intersection of health care and women's rights. It underscores that access to safe and legal abortion services is a fundamental component of comprehensive health care. This is why the language and content of Bill C-311 raises concerns about potential implications. It is also very similar to previous private members' bills brought forth by the same member that unsuccessfully tried to introduce the concept of a “preborn child” into the Criminal Code.

The history of abortion rights and the ongoing battles to protect and maintain those rights demonstrate the need for vigilance. What we see today is one Conservative's step to chip away at the established legal protections. I am disappointed that I have not seen any Conservative caucus members speak out against the bill, but their silence speaks volumes.

This is about more than a change to the Criminal Code; this is about fundamental Canadian values. Let me reassure any Canadians who are listening that our government will never shy away from standing up for our beliefs. We believe in access to abortion. However, the bill before us would actually weaken existing protections for pregnant women under the law.

Our government takes gender-based violence very seriously; we cannot support legislation that threatens existing legal protections. It is also important to note that judges already have the ability to grant aggravating circumstances if a victim is pregnant. This means that pregnancy is a factor to be considered at sentencing by judges in cases of assault. The bill, as drafted, fails to achieve its stated purpose.

Women’s rights organizations have not shown any support for the bill, but it has received substantial support from anti-choice groups and individuals. I will highlight a few organizations that have spoken out against Bill C-311. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has condemned this legislation. Abortion is Healthcare, a group from the sponsor’s home province of Saskatchewan, called out Bill C-311 for “slowly moving the fetus toward personhood.” I thank these organizations for their work in protecting reproductive rights.

In contrast to Bill C-311, the Government of Canada reaffirms its commitment to safeguarding access to abortion and essential health care. As a Conservative bill, Bill C-311 is not an isolated effort. It is the latest attempt to undermine and challenge the hard-fought reproductive rights that women in our country have secured.

Last week, I rose in the House to call on members to build a more gender-sensitive Parliament. Canadians are watching, and they want to see us having healthy debates. Many women had comments on the overall work we do here. Sandra commented that she would “like to see a solution focused culture rather than the abusive environment that is evident today.” On this side of the House, we want to advance women’s rights, and on the other side, they want to bring us back to square one.

On this side, we are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is our firm belief the charter protects the right to abortion. This charter right is not up for debate in our country, nor are any other charter rights.

Let us talk now about something else that is missing from this bill. That is the work that needs to be done to fight gender-based violence and keep women, girls and gender-diverse people safe.

In budget 2023, the Government of Canada once again affirmed its dedication to protecting and preserving access to abortion, allocating $36 million over the course of three years for the renewal of the sexual and reproductive health fund. This financial support will guarantee that marginalized and vulnerable communities can access essential sexual and reproductive health care information and services.

The 10-year national action plan aimed at ending gender-based violence is a crucial collaboration between our government and the provinces and territories. It includes a substantial half a billion dollars over five years to assist provinces and territories in its implementation.

We are moving full speed ahead to advance gender equality. Today, we must stand together in opposition to this bill. While strengthening sentencing for crimes against pregnant women may appear to be the intent here on paper, it can have far-reaching consequences for abortion rights. We must defend the reproductive rights of women and protect the principle that every woman has the right to make decisions, free from interference and judgment, about her own body.

We must not forget the struggles and sacrifices made by our mothers, our sisters and countless brave individuals who fought tirelessly until abortion was decriminalized in 1988. Even as we make progress, there are those who seek to turn back the clock and to chip away at the progress we have achieved.

I want to be very clear. Women's rights are non-negotiable, and abortion is health care. On this side of the House, we will not allow the hard-won victories of the past to be discarded. Canadian women deserve better than this. I will be voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, violence is a devastating scourge on our society. Regardless of the victim or the circumstances, it is unacceptable. Men using violence to abuse a woman is cowardly and ugly. It is unacceptable. Using violence against children is just as cowardly, just as ugly, and just as unacceptable. Violence against a pregnant woman is also ugly and cowardly. It is unacceptable. It is abhorrent. We agree on that, and no one will ever hear me trying to justify such horrible acts in the House. I do not think I could, even if I tried. I would lack all credibility.

Consequently, I imagine I will be asked to justify our position, because yes, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. The simple explanation is that the Bloc Québécois opposes any attempt to undermine women's rights to decide for themselves. Let us not kid ourselves: What we are talking about today is the right to abortion. It is at the heart of an issue that we all thought had been settled a long time ago. We feel that today's debates on this subject are out of date and I would even say, with all due respect, out of place.

Is it worth reviewing how far Quebec and Canadian women have come in this regard? Abortion was illegal in Canada until 1969, but that was followed by an almost equally dark period, when the right to abortion was fraught with conditions, rules and the need for advance authorization. In order to perform an abortion, the authorized hospitals had to first obtain the approval of a committee. The therapeutic abortion committee had to be made up of at least three doctors, none of whom could be doctors who performed abortions. I will not go so far as to say they were anti-choice, but I think we can all agree that they were certainly not the most pro-choice doctors.

Dr. Morgentaler's fight kept our courts and media busy for many decades. In the end, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison for performing illegal abortions after the Supreme Court of Canada denied his appeal in 1975. Then came the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was still not enough to prevent him from being taken to court again in 1983, along with two of his fellow doctors, for performing abortions in Toronto. At that time, the court ruled that the provisions of the Criminal Code on abortion infringed on a woman's right to security of the person. The Criminal Code provisions were struck down and they still have not been replaced. As of that moment, abortion was not longer prohibited in Quebec and Canada. The Supreme Court also reiterated in 1993 that the provinces could not restrict the right to abortion to only public hospitals.

Here we have a bill that, perversely, I would say with all due respect, would have us go along with a degree of legal right for the fetus; indirectly, some might say, but still. As the Criminal Code provides and the courts have recognized, acts of violence against a pregnant woman are unacceptable and an aggravating factor that can be considered by the court during sentencing. We agree with that. As I said at the outset, it is unacceptable, it is heinous, and it must be severely punished. Nevertheless, that does not mean my Conservative colleague's proposed provisions are acceptable.

As we saw in R. v S.W. in 2021 in the Court of Quebec, and as correctly laid out by professor Lucie Lemonde from the Université du Québec à Montréal in her work entitled Les menaces au droit à l'avortement et à l'autonomie des femmes enceintes, “the current provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient to achieve the goal of more severely punishing an assault on a pregnant woman”.

The Hon. Michel Doyon, then president of the Bar of Quebec, pointed this out himself to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in his letter dated May 30, 2008.

Indeed, paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code already provides for this important function in subparagraph (iii.1). It says:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

...

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation

As I was saying earlier, the Quebec court had to rule on a case involving a violent man who abused his wife when she was pregnant and even after she had children. Without relating all the facts submitted as evidence, the judge seized with the case rightly ruled that section 718.2 allowed for a harsher sentence for a man who abuses his pregnant wife.

Once again, the Hon. Michel Doyon handed down a similar ruling in 2008, and Professor Lemonde reiterated these facts in her article that I quoted earlier.

It seems to me that they would like us to swallow a pretty big and, above all, dangerous lie. Like my party, I am a strong advocate for women's rights to autonomy and the protection of their security and safety, which includes the right to abortion.

We do stand in strong solidarity against all forms of violence. With respect to the amendments to the Criminal Code, we have reiterated our position many times in the House. I have no pity for those who commit crimes with firearms, among other things, and I believe that is the case for my colleagues as well. These violent crimes must be severely punished.

The House must pass tough Criminal Code provisions to fight organized crime and combat illegal arms trafficking. We are as much against violence as we are against attacks on a woman's right to reasonable and safe abortion options within our health care systems.

No matter what political party we belong to, we owe it to ourselves to be particularly careful with our legislative power when dealing with subjects as sensitive as this that could potentially endanger the legal advances made in recent years—not so long ago, actually—for women's rights.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is 2023 and we are in the House again debating something that should not be up for debate: Bill C-311.

While the member for Yorkton—Melville claims that this bill is about protecting women from violence, no organizations that actually work to support and protect women from violence are endorsing this bill. Why is that? It is because the people who care about violence being perpetrated against women understand what is needed to protect and support women. Those are the things that my fellow New Democrats and I have been fighting for in this House for years and the very things that the member and the Conservative Party have refused to support.

They are things like implementing the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. They are things like legislation that would limit assault-style weapons. They are things like a whole range of economic measures that would support women, including dental care, child care and pay equity. They are things like adequately and comprehensively supporting the full range of reproductive rights and health care in all regions of Canada, particularly in northern and remote regions.

They are things like listening to experts like Julia Anderson, the CEO of CanWaCH, who told the foreign affairs committee just weeks ago, “a 12% average decline in access to modern contraception would result in an additional 734,000 unintended pregnancies.” She also indicated, “A 23% shift from safe to unsafe abortions will lead to an additional 491,000 unsafe abortions.” Acting to provide more access to birth control, abortion and maternal health care would save lives.

They are things like ensuring that Canada adheres to the feminist international assistance program and lives up to the commitments it has made to support sexual and reproductive health rights for women and girls throughout the world by funding health care services like abortion. In fact, this bill, Bill C-311, would do nothing to protect women or to support them. It is nothing more than an attempt to undermine women's rights in Canada, including the right to a safe and accessible abortion. It would take away health care services from women, because abortion is health care. Taking away access to safe abortions does not stop abortions from happening. It stops safe abortions from happening and it costs women their lives.

The right to control our reproductive health is fundamental to our rights as women. This is not the first time the member for Yorkton—Melville has attempted to undermine the right to an abortion and other women's rights. However, I think this may be the first time that we have seen this kind of violence washing: using violence against women as an excuse and a disguise for chipping away at women's rights.

This bill pretends that judges do not already have the discretion to apply greater penalties for aggravating circumstances. This is completely false, and there is no valid justification for this legislation. Our legal system is already more than capable of ensuring that women are protected. Judges already have the ability to add additional punishment.

In fact, there is only one reason for this bill to exist. It is designed to create a legal recognition for the fetus. I will quote the member for Yorkton—Melville's own words: “Canada has no abortion law. The legal void is so extreme that we do not even recognize preborn children when they are victims of violent crimes.”

It is my sincere hope that when members table bills for consideration, they do so truthfully and honestly and they legitimately believe in what they say about their bills. This bill is a blatant attempt to mislead this House and Canadians. There is no need for this bill. There is no rationale for this bill. In fact, this bill is dangerous to women. It is dangerous to women in Canada and it is dangerous to women around the world. It is actually harmful, because we know that at least 40,000 women are dying annually around the world because of unsafe abortions. I want to say it one more time: When we criminalize abortion, we do not stop abortion and we do not stop women accessing abortion; we stop safe abortion and women die.

Limiting access to abortions and reproductive health care does not stop abortions. I cannot say that more clearly. Whenever a woman is denied the power to make her own decisions about whether and how often to become pregnant, her internationally recognized human rights are violated, and her health and life are at risk. The best way to protect women and girls is to provide health care, provide support and not limit women's access to those things.

I have said this in the House before: I have a daughter. I will fight to my dying breath to ensure that she can access every health care support that she wants in her lifetime and that she will always have the right to choose when she has children, if she has children and how she has children. I would be a horrible person if I could stand in this place and want that for my daughter, and not want that for every woman and girl in this world.

I will continue to stand and protect women's rights, and no matter how many times the member brings backdoor bills forward and tries to take away the rights of women, New Democrats will not support it.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I guess there was a question in this House earlier about whether the member for Kingston and the Islands supported the motion that I proposed yesterday, so I am going to pose the question again.

If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before that, we have a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows, as does the Conservative caucus, that one cannot bring in a unanimous motion when we have already dealt with the unanimous motion request. To continue to attempt to raise this, as members know, is against the rules.

I would suggest that the member's interrupting private members' hour in order to repeat a motion that was just rejected by a member, or possibly two, as I do not know who said no, is not appropriate at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Members can propose anything at any time with the unanimous consent of the House. Even though it might have been shot down earlier, it can be brought forward again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Can they do it endlessly?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I do not know, because nobody has tried to do it endlessly.

I would suggest to the hon. member that when someone is attacking another member for either shooting something down or saying no, it is probably a bad start to proposing a unanimous consent motion.

The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House call for the immediate return of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hearing “no” again.

We are moving on to the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha on this bill.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a great privilege to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of my community of Peterborough—Kawartha.

I would like to thank my colleague from Yorkton—Melville for putting forth Bill C-311, which I will be speaking to this evening.

Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to violence against pregnant women, is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation. If passed, it will create accountability for those who commit violence against pregnant women.

Here is the bill summary, which comes right out of the legislation itself:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

That is the entire bill summary. The bill is less than one page long.

Let me quote it:

Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing....

It does exactly one thing. It adds longer prison sentences where there is:

evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant...evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to [the] pregnant victim

Violence against women has been recognized as a global public health problem since 2010. Violence during pregnancy is of special concern due to the adverse effects on not only the mother but also the developing child. Violence during pregnancy has been associated with negative lifestyle behaviours, compromised prenatal care and poor maternal physical and mental health.

When a perpetrator has been identified and found guilty, the sentence must be required to match the crime. This is something all of us in the House of Commons can agree on. What we know and what my colleague has brought to light is that the Criminal Code sentencing provisions are insufficient. It is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant, yet consequences for their attackers do not.

According to Statistics Canada, intimate partner violence has steadily increased each year for the past seven years, and eight in 10 victims of crime are women. The Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System reported that women abused during pregnancy were four times as likely as other abused women to report having experienced very serious violence, and this is a little graphic for people watching at home, including being beaten, choked, threatened with a gun or knife, or sexually assaulted.

Furthermore, there are more than 80 cases in recent Canadian history of women who have been killed while pregnant. Each of these women was killed by a man who knew they were pregnant, yet sentencing judges are not mandated to take these actions into account under the current law.

Each and every one of us in the House, regardless of party lines, carries the responsibility to do everything we can to make public safety a priority, to ensure that everyone is safe, including our most vulnerable. In existing criminal law, if a pregnant woman is assaulted, depending on her injuries, the offender could face a maximum penalty of 14 years if they were charged with aggravated assault. With this new legislation, that person could be liable to a harsher sentence.

This is a bill designed to increase public safety. This is a bill designed to show Canadians that we care about public safety. Who can argue with that?

When one hears the facts, it seems like a no-brainer bill that would get the support of all members, but sadly that is not the case. So often, it takes a tragedy to change laws. As we have heard, there have been almost 100 tragedies of pregnant women being murdered, and the law still has not changed. Today, we have a chance to do that.

I spoke with Jeff Durham, who I know is watching right now. Jeff was the husband of Cassie and the father of Molly. Cassie and Molly were brutally murdered by someone known to them. Jeff has tried for years to get this law passed, and he expressed his deep frustration with me on the phone, in a very private conversation that he allowed me to share with the House, that he cannot believe how politics continue to hijack this bill.

This country is failing victims, survivors and their families. This country is soft on crime, and public safety is eroding rapidly. Canada's worst criminal in history has been moved to a medium-security prison. What message are we sending to Canadians?

There is no longer an incentive to be a good human, because there are no consequences. It is time we stood with survivors, victims and their families. It is time we showed our support with action.

This bill is concrete action. It puts in place a sentence that matches the horror of killing or assaulting a pregnant woman. We are Canadians. We should be protecting our most vulnerable, and that includes pregnant women. I ask every member in this house to stand up for victims, survivors and their families.

I ask every member in this House, every mother, to think about Jeff Durham when they cast their vote for this bill. I ask them to think about their sisters, their aunts, their daughters or their own mothers, and how they would feel if someone attacked them, or worse, if someone attacked them while they were pregnant. The time should match the crime, and attacking or murdering a pregnant women is among the most heinous of crimes. The mother is the most sacred of people in our society.

Let us do something to fix it. Let us send a message that it will not be tolerated. Let us remove the politics from this bill. Let us stand with public safety. Let us implement a law that says we will not tolerate this, and let us vote in favour of Bill C-311.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-311. I trust all hon. colleagues in the House condemn acts of violence.

The member for Yorkton—Melville wants to amend the Criminal Code. She wants to mandate that knowingly assaulting a pregnant person or causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant person would be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. This is already true, as the member well knows. It has been said over and over again that judges already have the ability to apply harsher penalties when aggravating factors are present in a crime, crimes such as knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman.

The changes proposed in this bill are unnecessary, but of course the member knows that. She knows this bill's true intention takes no genuine action to end the ongoing crisis of gender-based violence. It is disappointing we are having this discussion today because this bill is not about preventing violence. This bill is about something much darker, which is the backdoor codifying of fetal rights, the first step of removing a woman's right to choose.

I want to make something very clear. Our government takes no joy in participating in this debate. It should not be grounds for political points or political gain. On this side of the House, we fundamentally believe in a woman's right to choose, and it is not up for debate.

Access to abortion is health care and it saves lives, plain and simple. It is the Conservatives who insist on bringing this up and who insist on reopening this debate. This is the third such bill that has been brought forward by the member for Yorkton—Melville, and it will be the third such bill to be defeated.

Whether it is about sex-selective abortions, the so-called preborn children act or this bill about violence against pregnant women, we know a backdoor argument when we see one. It is an undeniable fact that violence against pregnant women specifically increases the likelihood of poor health outcomes for parent and child. Perpetrators of this type of violence are most often men and intimate partners, but all types of intimate partner violence have an impact on the mental, physical and emotional health of the victim. Violence against pregnant women is no exception, and the problem is not unique to Canada.

When this bill was first introduced to the House, the member opposite said, “I want every member of my party to have the freedom to vote their conscience.” If this bill were truly about pregnant women and the protection of children, the member would have the votes she is already seeking, but it is not.

This debate is not about ending violence against women or children. Anti-choice groups are cheering this bill on because they believe it is the first step toward taking away a woman's right to an abortion. That will never happen under this government. We will fight this bill tooth and nail.

Addressing gender-based violence should not focus on pregnant women alone. It should focus on everyone at risk of experiencing this very serious form of violence. We need to focus on approaches that end gender-based violence in our society as a whole, not just in specific circumstances.

Bill C-311 will never achieve that. Because our society is constantly evolving, Canadians are coming to better understand the harmful social norms that contribute to gender-based violence. They also increasingly recognize our justice and social systems too often fail the survivors of gender-based violence. Canadians agree we need a country free of gender-based violence, and they understand we need a holistic approach to get there.

The national action plan to end gender-based violence, which was launched last year, is the strategic framework for action across jurisdictions. Our goal is to support the victims, the survivors and their families, no matter what. We are at the negotiating table with provinces and territories to implement the national action plan right now.

The national action plan is so important to this work because it builds on actions we have already taken to address gender-based violence. We have clarified the definition of consent. We have strengthened laws to address gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence. We have toughened bail eligibility for repeat offenders. We passed Keira's law, meaning judges must be educated on coercive control. We have given courts the authority to mandate that perpetrators of intimate partner violence must wear an electronic monitoring device. We have introduced five paid leave days for survivors of family violence, helping them access the supports that they need.

Acts of gender-based violence are despicable. I believe in earnest that every member in this place supports that notion, condemns gender-based violence and works every day to end it in this country. Fundamentally, gender-based violence violates our human rights. It takes a physical, psychological and financial toll on victims, survivors and their families.

However, the member knows well that bills like this are the entry point for the pro-life movement. They exploit one of the most painful parts of a woman's life. This legislation is a means to an end, which is to criminalize pregnant people experiencing miscarriages and eventually criminalizing abortions. If we follow this path to its natural conclusion, this bill would give more rights to a fetus than to the person carrying it.

Bill C-311 is not trying to end gender-based violence in our country. To do that, we need to continue working with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous partners, frontline organizations, civil society groups and all people living in Canada who want to find long-term solutions to this problem, which has plagued our country for far too long. We do not need distractions from that goal.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

If I were to recognize the hon. member forYorkton—Melville, it would be for her right of reply.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have laid my private member's bill, Bill C-311, before parliament, and I will now end this second hour of debate with my closing comments.

The violence against pregnant women act would amend the Criminal Code by adding two new aggravating circumstances to paragraph 718.2(a). In other words, when an individual is charged with causing injury or death to a pregnant woman and has gone through a trial in a court of law and been found guilty, the judge determining the sentence would have to consider evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who the offender knew to be pregnant, and/or evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim.

First and foremost, I stand here tonight in response to the families of victims who have done, and continue to do, so much in the midst of their grief in calling for these aggravating factors to be entrenched in our Criminal Code on behalf of pregnant victims of crime. There is Jeff Durham, who lost Cassie and Molly, and Sherry and Chan Goberdhan, who lost Arianna and Asaara. They are the voices representing so many more who lived through their experience, their grief and their call for greater justice.

It is my privilege to stand here advocating on behalf of those who no longer breathe or have a voice, on behalf of their families who have lost loved ones as their lives were taken in targeted violent crimes, and on behalf of those who face violence daily while living in fear of injury because they have made the choice to carry their pregnancy to term.

This evening, I am incredibly grateful for the endorsement of cultural groups whose work involves a heavy focus on the prevention of violence, namely: the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society, the United Sikhs Canada, the Overseas Friends of India Canada, the Greater Vancouver Bangladesh Cultural Association, the Baitul Mukarram Islamic Society, the Pakistani Canadian Cultural Association and the Sikh Motorcycle Club of Ontario.

It has been an honour to spend time with each of these organizations and to receive their written support for the violence against pregnant women act. I thank them again.

I am thankful for the support of my Conservative colleagues from South Surrey—White Rock and Peterborough—Kawartha for contributing to the debate in this place, and I thank the member for Brantford—Brant, whose legal competence assured me that the claim that this bill could harm pregnant women was a fallacy.

A special thanks to the member for Calgary Nose Hill, whose Substack article on this very issue reached 57,000 positive reads overnight last night, as we weighed in together on this difficult issue. Those people are not the people the Liberals are claiming are putting this bill forward.

I have deep respect for my colleagues and our leader, who know that this clear, concise bill is about one thing: protecting vulnerable pregnant women from violent men. In my speech in the first hour of debate, I referenced the fact that 70% of Canadians and 73% of Canadian women want to see increased protection for pregnant women in our laws, and want to see a woman’s choice to carry her child to term have greater recognition and weight in our legal system. This is fact.

I extend my sincere thanks to the thousands of Canadians who have made their desires known through their letters, phone calls, opinion polls, Substack responses and very direct comments of disgust and disappointment on the Liberal social media campaign that misrepresents the intent of the violence against pregnant women act.

Since 2015, violent crime has increased by a third and gang killings have doubled across our nation. Intimate partner violence has steadily increased each year for the last seven years, and eight in 10 victims of that crime are women.

In the first hour of debate, I spoke of a call from a young woman who, while pregnant, feared for her life and the life of her child. With the challenges she is now facing, such as limited income when food prices are skyrocketing, an inability to work while wanting and needing to care for her newborn, waiting for a room in a shelter, finding a home she could afford, and having had her belongings, credit card and bank account stolen by her abusive and threatening husband, she is nothing short of a strong, determined and brave woman. This remarkable woman thanked me for bringing forward the violence against pregnant women act.

Colleagues, every measure we can implement to better care for pregnant women facing violence must be taken. The violence against pregnant women act is one of those measures. Everyone in this place, including lawyers, know this is true, and Canadians await our decision.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to deal with the question of privilege response that was given by my—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

May I interrupt for just a moment? If there is new information to be provided about the question of privilege, I would be more than happy to hear it. If it is just a general comment on something, I will make a decision quickly as to whether it is admissible.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.