SoVote

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

May/9/23 4:29:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, guns and gangs are a real problem in Thunder Bay. The other day, there was a shootout in a housing complex. People are genuinely worried about the problem in Thunder Bay. Could the minister please talk about his announcement this morning about giving more money to police forces to deal with guns and gangs, and how this may help us in Thunder Bay to deal with this problem of guns?

72 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

May/9/23 4:30:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in fact, as I mentioned earlier during this debate, yesterday the government announced an additional $390 million that will go directly to support law enforcement to dismantle and take down organized criminals who use guns. I would also point out that the original bill, in its proper form, includes raising maximum sentences against hardened gun traffickers as a means of deterring them. It also would provide law enforcement with additional tools around wiretapping and surveillance so that they can share information and use that to disturb, dismantle and stop organized criminal networks that use guns to support and supply their trade. I have assured the member that we will work closely with the province and his community to see that their work in Thunder Bay is supported as well.

131 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

May/9/23 4:31:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem with gangs and violence. Violent crime is skyrocketing. We are talking about Bill C-21, which talks about taking legal guns from legal gun owners. I want to ask the minister, since the government uses evidence-based policies, what percentage of crimes are committed by people with illegal guns, and what percentage are committed by people who have actual legal guns? The answer to the second is going to be zero. After 35 years in policing, I know that answer. Why not put that money into education programs and forget Bill C-21? Scrap Bill C-21. It would not be effective. I agree that we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting people who have legal guns. Why not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals?

140 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

May/9/23 4:31:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, there are at least two serious mistakes in the premise of the Conservative member's question. The first is that we are not going after criminals. In Bill C-21, as I have just mentioned, we would raise maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years for illegal gun traffickers. That is an important and powerful signal to anyone who would try to terrorize our communities that they will run the risk of going to jail for a longer period of time. The Conservative member also referred to prevention. That is precisely what the government is doing with a $250-million building safer communities fund. I would point out that the Conservatives have opposed the building safer communities fund's allocations, which will save lives through prevention by providing mental health services and other supports for people who are at most risk. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-21, which would give law enforcement the additional tools to go after criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why their position is so misguided. On this side of the House, we are doing the work. We are making sure that we pass responsible gun control legislation, but we are also taking action at the border and advancing strong prevention strategies.

213 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

May/9/23 4:33:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the engagement and consultation that have been carried out with rural communities in general. I am thinking in particular of hunting organizations and sport shooting organizations, with engagement that has ultimately led to the bill currently under consideration, in its revised form.

52 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

May/9/23 4:33:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague from London that, as he knows, we have been working with rural communities and first nations communities right across the country. In fact, I have spent a good, considerable period of time with a number of experts in gaming and hunting in the Yukon, where I had a chance to see how they participate in their traditions. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the way in which they participate in their traditions in a way that is safe and secure. I have also assured them, as we have done with indigenous communities, that this bill would reflect their lived experiences. What does that mean in plain and simple terms? It means that this bill would not target them. Rather, it would go after criminals. It would go after AR-15 assault-style firearms. Yes, it would implement a national freeze on handguns, because handguns have been growing by approximately 55,000 new registrations every year and they have concurrently become the number one type of gun used in homicides. Those are the types of evidence-based, informed policies that are in Bill C-21, and that is why it would help save lives.

203 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

May/9/23 4:34:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, there is just so much wrong with this presentation. Under the Liberals, violent crime has gone up 32%; gang crime has gone up almost 100%. The minister just spoke about registered firearms, yet the experts who appeared at the justice committee, the police chiefs, said that illegal firearms coming in from the United States are the cause of this problem. Would the minister acknowledge that his bill, Bill C-5, eliminated mandatory penalties for trafficking in illegal firearms, drive-by shootings and using a firearm in the commission of an offence? While he is talking about increasing sentences for certain crimes, would he also acknowledge that the maximum sentence has never been used for any of these crimes, and it will not be under these changes?

128 words

Hon. Marco Mendicino

May/9/23 4:35:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I will not predict what a court will do, because each case is taken on its merits. I suppose that is the biggest difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. When it comes to the judiciary, we have faith in that institution. My colleague knows that Bill C-5 was a response to the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly striking down the failed Conservative approach to sentencing. This disproportionately impacted racialized Canadians and indigenous peoples. Yes, we do need to make sure that we are putting in place the appropriate sentencing for hardened gun traffickers. I believe that by raising maximum sentences, we are sending a clear signal to the courts. This is an expectation that if people terrorize anyone with a gun, they will face stiffer jail sentences. However, we also need to take action at the border. We did that with the Americans. We also need to include prevention. The Conservatives have never supported that, but they should. That is what a comprehensive plan looks like.

170 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 4:36:43 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. 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. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

73 words

Interrupt

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/9/23 4:37:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, ideally, it would be carried on division. However, I have the sense that we are going to need a recorded division on this, so I would request a recorded division.

32 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 4:37:35 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 5:21:02 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/9/23 5:21:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I hope that if you seek it, you will find consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, following the disposal of Government Business No. 25 later this day, the House shall resume consideration of the privilege motion standing in the name of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

67 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/9/23 5:21:32 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. Agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

35 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

May/9/23 5:22:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks concerning what is, in my opinion, a very undemocratic motion put forward by the Liberals. What just transpired in this House was a closure motion to basically shut me up and stop the discussion we began as a result of the Liberals and the NDP working together. They did not like that I was going on and on. I had a lot to say, so they voted to keep me quiet. I will be silenced, in essence, after these 20 minutes by the Liberals and the NDP, who are working together to ultimately ensure the slow and painful removal of hunting rifles from everyday Canadians who are trained, tested and vetted by police. That is just the context for folks so they know what is going on in this House. Ultimately, Motion No. 25 is a time allocation motion, in essence. At committee, we are talking about Bill C-21 and the many amendments brought forward by the Liberals, the NDP and other parties, which are worthy of discussion, debate and questions for officials. If the motion passes, which it is sure to do because the NDP and the Liberals are working together so closely on this, it will severely limit our ability as opposition members to heavily scrutinize a bill that would impact 2.3 million gun owners, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the hundreds of years of culture and heritage in Canada. Just to be clear, that is what the Liberals and the NDP are working together on today. The Conservatives have been relentless in standing up for rural Canadians and for law-abiding citizens. Certainly, I have been honoured to be given this role by our leader, the member for Carleton, but there are many other members in our caucus who have done extraordinary work for all firearms owners, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I want to make sure they are acknowledged, because they only reason we are here and have mobilized the country to pay attention to this injustice by the Liberals and the NDP working together is the work that has come from people before me and the work of committee members now. I just want to acknowledge them. At the public safety committee, I have worked very closely with the members for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and Sturgeon River—Parkland, and recently we also had on committee the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We have worked very hard over the last six months and over the year and a half I have been on committee. Certainly, we have gotten a lot of expertise from folks in our caucus who really live and breath this culture in Canada. They are a true testament to how important it is in Canada that we fight for this to maintain it. They are the members for Red Deer—Lacombe and Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. I come after very strong members of Parliament who have done extraordinary work. I have been able to stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. Notably, the member for Lakeland is an extraordinary woman and did incredible work on this file. I am very honoured to follow her and follow in her footsteps in this role. There is also the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. We have a team of Conservatives who are working on the right side of this debate. They are making history to stand up for a culture that continues to be kicked like a football, a political wedge, by the Liberals. Every time they are not doing well in the polls and every time our message is resonating, it is like they break out an emergency, and firearms is one of them. They spread misinformation, when really we know all of what they are doing does not impact the criminals who are shooting up the streets, and does not impact the gangsters who are in highly organized smuggling rings across the border to bring in the nine out of 10 firearms used in Toronto. The drugs and human trafficking are related. This is rather than attacking those issues and repeat violent offenders, and it is a result of the government's catch-and-release bail system from Bill C-75 a few years ago, a Liberal bill that the police tell us over and over again is causing what is happening on our streets. We see all these repeat violent offenders stabbing people and wreaking havoc on our streets. Forty individuals in Vancouver were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police last year. This is a result of the reckless catch-and-release policies the Liberals brought in, and they were heavily supported, in lockstep, by the NDP. While all of this is happening, our message is resonating and the public is concerned about public safety. However, what do the Liberals do? They bring in gun control, which we know really means they are going after heavily vetted, trained and tested individuals who are licensed to own firearms. They hunt, protect their livestock and represent us at the Olympics in sport shooting. These are the kinds of people the Liberals are targeting with Bill C-21, and the NDP is working in lockstep to slowly but surely, step by step, destroy this way of life in Canada. Shame on the NDP. The New Democrats have plenty of rural and northern members whom they are failing given what they are doing with the Liberals. I am going to name a few of those members. There are so many, honestly. These are good rural people who are being failed by what the NDP is doing here. We have the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in Ontario; the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski from Manitoba, which is all of northern Manitoba, where they live off hunting; and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I know there are a lot of hunters and sport shooters in his riding. We have the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in B.C., and we have the members for North Island—Powell River, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. People are being failed by their members of Parliament in this regard. For a moment, we thought there was a light, and the NDP members were supportive, saying, “No, this is crazy.” I do not know what the Liberals are offering them, but then, all of a sudden, they completely abandoned the rural people they are supposed to represent, who are continuously kicked by the Liberal government. It is disgusting. I have a lot to say with my remaining time. Again, I have been silenced and limited to 20 minutes now because the Liberals and the New Democrats do not want to hear the facts. All they want to do is work together to destroy a way of life in this country that the Conservatives are very proud to protect and fight for. We will continue to do so. Honestly, I had four binders of facts and data, which the Liberals pretend they care about while they follow the science. We will never get to that. We will never get to have the opportunity to talk about that because they have voted to silence the debate on this. I wonder why. They are running, perhaps, from the reality of what they are facing. They do not want to face the facts on the ground of what this means to the Canadians it impacts and what it means to let criminals off the hook yet again. It is very disappointing that the Liberals are working with the New Democrats and that the New Democrats are going along with this. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are letting down rural Canadians in this way, who thought they had a voice when they voted NDP. Clearly they were wrong. I am very sorry to those voters, but we will have their backs. We will continue to have their backs, and we will also have the backs of all the folks in cities who are being misrepresented by the Liberals. We will pick this back up in an hour.

1424 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/9/23 5:30:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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. She said: 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—

2325 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/23 5:45:38 p.m.
Watch

The time is up. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.

21 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

May/9/23 5:45:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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?

125 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

May/9/23 5:46:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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. Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: 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.

160 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/9/23 5:48:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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?

92 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 193