SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23

Jun/13/23 6:05:37 p.m.
Watch

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. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Can they do it endlessly? The Deputy Speaker: 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.

92 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Jun/13/23 6:06:16 p.m.
Watch

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—

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:06:28 p.m.
Watch

I am hearing “no” again. We are moving on to the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha on this bill.

22 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:06:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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.

1009 words

Ms. Jenna Sudds (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:13:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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.

982 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:21:27 p.m.
Watch

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

26 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:21:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-311

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.

812 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:26:51 p.m.
Watch

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.

46 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/13/23 6:27:20 p.m.
Watch

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

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:27:23 p.m.
Watch

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.

43 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/13/23 6:27:45 p.m.
Watch

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

19 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:27:45 p.m.
Watch

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.

59 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:28:11 p.m.
Watch

That is fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I want to address what the member for Winnipeg North said in his response, because in my view, he blatantly misstated things and, frankly, should be withdrawing some of his comments. I do not have an exact quote here, but the member said the question that I applauded to, asked by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, was basically a sullying of his reputation. However, there was no such thing in that question whatsoever. This is what the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said in part when he referenced Justice Iacobucci: We have the Prime Minister, who hired his friend, paying him $1,500 a day. That friend then hired Liberals. He hired Frank Iacobucci, from the Trudeau Foundation. He hired Liberal insiders, such as Sheila Block, and now we have this rapporteur.... That was the end. That was not the way it was conveyed by the member for Winnipeg North, and he should be ashamed for the framing of this. Furthermore, he talked about this being about the Italian community and not the legal community, and this was not necessarily raised yesterday when I spoke. The reality is—

208 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:29:31 p.m.
Watch

While I appreciate that we are talking about this question of privilege, we are basically rehashing what was said before. If there is new information or if some responses have been received, I think the Chair would be more than happy to hear that. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

53 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/13/23 6:29:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I raised my question of privilege, the Minister of Justice had not gone to the media, and the member for Winnipeg North had not spoken. This is not about impugning somebody's reputation in the legal community. It is about impugning their reputation in the Italian community. A member's privilege is fettered when they are intimidated from speaking based on something like clapping. In my respectful view, it should be a foregone conclusion that damaging or sullying someone's reputation in their cultural community is as bad as, if not worse than, sullying their reputation in the legal community. However, we have the member for Winnipeg North reading something, presumably from the PMO, that does just that and justifies it. The Liberals are victim blaming in this case in what is an obvious overstep by the Attorney General. I will end with this. The member deliberately used the term “thin skin”. I would have challenged him or the member for Kingston and the Islands, who said it to me earlier, to come to work with me for one week when I was prosecuting sexual offences against children to see if they could last. That was a completely inappropriate comment. He should retract it and he should apologize. He should not be doing this to hon. members in this House, because it is dishonourable conduct.

230 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/13/23 6:31:25 p.m.
Watch

As I said earlier, the Chair is actively looking at the question of privilege and will come back with a response as soon as we possibly can.

27 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/13/23 6:32:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my previous eight minutes yesterday, I unpacked some challenges with what the Liberals are proposing and why I believe that what is more or less a sunset clause, which the opposition House leader has proposed, is vitally important to this discussion. I would like to conclude my remarks on this by emphasizing something that I believe is causing an erosion of the democratic institutions in this country. We see a growing disconnect between the executive branch of government in Canada and the legislative branch. I bring this up because it is foundational to what makes Canada distinct as a Westminster federal state. Unlike our counterparts in the United States and unlike other republics around the world, our executive branch of government is represented by a Prime Minister, the first minister among what are supposed to be equals, although that tradition has long since gone away. The government is also represented by the cabinet in the front bench, who are members of the Privy Council. We have seen a growing disconnect between what happens in this place and what conduct is decided upon when it comes to how government operates. This is especially concerning because in our nation, this is the only institution, with senators who are elected from Alberta being the small exception, on a national level where Canadians get to choose who represents them. In conclusion, I urge all members of this House to think about that, and specifically Liberal members, who seem intent on seeing the disconnect expand between the executive and legislative branches of government. The ultimate result is that it will break the very foundation of what our democracy is supposed to be.

280 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Jun/13/23 6:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that there are, in fact, two members of my colleague's caucus who have had babies during this Parliament and who have actually been able to participate fully as members of Parliament after giving birth because of the hybrid option available. Since he and his party are opposed to it, I would like to understand how he proposes that his colleagues participate following giving birth to their children. I would also like to ask him, and I hope he answers honestly, whether he or any other member of his caucus has ever availed themselves of the voting app or the hybrid system. Why does he feel we should not continue to do this? I ask because it is actually enabling more gender equity in this place and is allowing a greater diversity of people to participate and represent their constituents.

146 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/13/23 6:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that a minister of the Crown would not have commented on my most recent remarks about the growing disconnect between the legislative and executive branches of government. I think it highlights the troubling trend we are seeing that is causing an erosion of trust in this institution. It is contributing to why Canadians not only do not trust the Liberals, but are simply losing trust in the democratic institutions of our country. Canadians point to members like the minister and the Prime Minister, among others, who are directly contributing to that. My commute each week is about 12 hours doorstep to doorstep, and I count it as an honour and a responsibility in the midst of the family sacrifice associated with it. Never once have the Conservatives said we should not find accommodation. That is playing politics on what we believe are serious issues. There is a need to ensure we respect our democratic institutions and the more than eight centuries of history associated with them. I urge the minister and members of all other political parties who seem bent on rushing into these things to take a pause and ensure we are finding the right balance, because simply put, my constituents do not trust members like the minister or other Liberals, as they seem to be putting their political interests ahead of those of the country and our democratic institutions, including those who are pushing for greater inclusion.

246 words

Trust

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Jun/13/23 6:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as one of the people who believes very much in diversity in the House of Commons and making sure that all kinds of Canadians can participate in democracy, I am a strong supporter of the virtual Parliament measures. I think it is essential to our democracy that Parliament does evolve and change. Next door to me is the member for Victoria, a young mom who is about two days away from having a second child, and because she cannot fly during that period of time, she would be excluded from these proceedings if it were not for virtual Parliament. I think what we are seeing here is an evolution that makes Parliament more democratic and more representative. Like the member, I have a long commute and I go home every weekend. I do not avail myself of virtual Parliament very often, but that does not mean that I think others should be deprived of that right.

158 words