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.

Resumption of Debate on the Motion for Concurrence

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his staunch support for a woman's right to choose.

It is extraordinarily disappointing to me that we have members in the House who would try to undermine a woman's right to choose, and we know they are in the Conservative caucus. Over one-third of the Conservative caucus is endorsed by anti-choice groups as pro-life, a.k.a. they want to undermine a woman's right to choose, and 73% are rated as anti-choice MPs by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Actually, it was 73%, but now 100% of them are rated anti-choice because of their vote on Bill C-311, which is the same kind of legislation that Republican elected officials brought in the United States to start undermining a woman's right to choose and overturn Roe versus Wade. This is what they are trying to do here in Canada, and we will fight to stop them.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that this is an important, productive debate. When we see the backsliding not only south of the border but also here in Canada, it is critical that we rise in the House to discuss the issue of a woman's fundamental right to choose. This is foundational to gender equity, to public health and to human dignity.

Access to abortion care is health care, both here in Canada and around the world. This is a conversation about rights. It is not abstract principles. It is the lived experience of women and gender-diverse people, as well as the tangible rights of these people in our country. Canada has been a leader in affirming abortion as a fundamental right. In 1988, the Supreme Court's decision struck down restrictive abortion laws as unconstitutional.

The Conservatives like to talk about freedom. They wave freedom flags, but when it comes to the freedom of a woman to make choices about her own body, about our own bodies, for some reason, those freedoms are up for grabs. The majority of Conservative MPs are anti-choice. One-third of them are openly campaigning on anti-choice legislation and are endorsed by anti-choice organizations. However, if we look at their voting records, we see that the vast majority of them are anti-choice. According to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, 100% of Conservative MPs are anti-choice, given their recent vote on backdoor legislation.

Bill C-311 is very similar to the bills down south that Republican elected officials used to undermine Roe v. Wade. We are seeing the same tactics in Canada. Of course, the Conservative leader is saying that Conservatives promise they will not support legislation that bans abortion. This is despite the fact that the Conservative leader voted five times in favour of legislation that would restrict access to choice or voted in favour of anti-choice bills, such as Bill C-311. However, we know that his intention is to cut health care, services and funding internationally for reproductive rights, as the Harper government did when the Conservative leader was a minister in that government.

Anti-choice rhetoric is finding a firmer foothold here in Canada. It is amplified in the House by the Conservative members. It is paraded around by such members as the member for Peace River—Westlock, who went outside the House of Commons to anti-choice rallies and made commitments to his supporters, to the supporters of the Conservative Party, to fight to end a woman's right to choose and to restrict access to choice, to health care for women and for gender-diverse people across this country. He is not the only Conservative MP to do so.

The MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands took a paid trip down to a church in the United States. A pro-life, anti-choice church brought him down to speak about his stance on trying to end a woman's right to choose. To have Conservative MPs going to the United States to learn new tactics, to collaborate, to organize with anti-choice activists there and to bring that back to Canada is terrifying. It is terrifying to me, and I think it is terrifying to women across this country.

I also want to bring up the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Not only has the member been vocal about being against a woman's right to choose, but he also spent 18 hours filibustering this report because he did not want to talk about the fundamental right of women in Canada and around the world to access abortion care.

It tracks that the Conservatives want to cut funding for reproductive rights. Abortion care is health care. Whether it is for a broken leg, heart surgery or abortion care, Canadians need access to health care, to quality health care across this country. Conservatives have a track record of cutting that.

Unfortunately the Liberals have a track record of failing to uphold the Canada Health Act. I have spoken about this in the House before. About two decades ago I was sitting with a friend in New Brunswick, in grade 11, talking about the multi-hour drive to Montreal she would have to take if she wanted to access abortion. I am getting choked up because it is a horrific reality that so many women in Canada face when they do not have access to the care they need.

I could not have imagined that two decades later, Clinic 554 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, would close and that the Liberal government would not use the provisions in the Canada Health Act that it knows it could use to ensure access for all women in British Columbia and for all people across this country. Our health care system guarantees Canadians the right to access medically necessary services. Abortion is that kind of service, yet those kinds of clinic closures demonstrate the fragility of access to care.

I think about women and gender diverse people in Alberta, whose provincial Conservatives have outsourced health care to private institutions and religious institutions that will not provide contraception and abortion care to the women who need them. Those are systemic barriers that hinder equitable access. The lack of leadership from the federal government to enforce the Canada Health Act makes these barriers worse.

I also want to talk about our responsibility globally. We need to demonstrate leadership when it comes to prioritizing sexual health and reproductive health on the global stage, including through our international assistance policy. We know about the cuts that happened during the Harper era. The Harper government cut all funding to reproductive health, reproductive services and sexual health services around the globe. Canada has a responsibility to step up to support nations around the world in accessing health care and reproductive care.

I find it difficult when Conservative members talk about the rights of the unborn or try to sneak legislation in that has increased penalties for the murder of pregnant women or the harm of an unborn child. Evidence shows that limiting access to abortions or restricting women's choice does not stop abortions; it just means that unsafe abortions happen.

When we restrict comprehensive reproductive health services, everyone suffers. When we ensure that access exists, societies prosper. Investing in the services reduces maternal mortality, improves economic opportunities for women and promotes equality.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to protect and promote these rights. We cannot allow a vocal minority in Canada that has influence over the official opposition to undermine these rights. We cannot allow it to undermine decades of work that feminist organizations and people across Canada have fought to protect. We must act decisively. We need to ensure compliance, enforce the Canada Health Act, ensure that we are eliminating any kind of user fee and provide equitable abortion access in every province.

We need to invest strategically and expand funding for clinics and services in rural and underserved areas. We need to ensure that midwives, nurse practitioners, nurses and family doctors are available for people when they need assistance with their reproductive health.

We need to combat misinformation, challenge the anti-choice narratives and ensure that facts are brought into the House and that we have rights-driven education campaigns. We must not allow backdoor legislation to undermine these rights, and we must not allow the vocal minority that wants to undermine our right to choose to have influence over the decisions of the House.

Access to abortion is a domestic issue, but the report focuses on the global issue of human rights with respect to public health. Around the world, millions of women face unsafe abortions because of restrictive laws, lack of resources and systemic inequalities. Each year, 35 million unsafe abortions occur globally. That is a horrific statistic. Unsafe abortions lead to preventable deaths and life-altering injuries. Canada must be a global leader in supporting sexual and reproductive health.

It is terrifying to think of what Conservatives would do to abortion rights here in Canada if they were in power. It is horrific to think about the consequences of the cuts they would make to international assistance around the world and what that would mean for women who are trying to access reproductive care.

The world is at a crossroads. Some countries are advancing abortion rights, but others, and I think we see this in the Conservative caucus, are emboldened by movements in the United States to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is a backslide happening. Our leadership at this moment matters. By standing firm, Canada can continue to support the global efforts to ensure that every woman and every person, including all gender diverse people everywhere, has the right to make decisions about their own body.

We have talked before about Conservative creep for this kind of legislation, the changes in tone and rhetoric and also the changes to the laws that would have a fundamental impact on people's right to choose. I want to speak directly to young women and young gender diverse people who might be looking at the prospect of the Conservatives' getting into power and undermining their rights. Their voice right now matters. Their organizing matters. Standing up for their right to choose matters. It matters to have these discussions in the House.

I am disappointed that the Bloc decided to try to kill the debate. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would do that. I know there are staunch supporters in the Bloc of a woman's right to choose, but I am still disappointed that at this moment, when we are at a crossroads on reproductive and sexual health, the Bloc would do that, especially given that every other time a motion like the one before us has come up to return to orders of the day, 36 times its members voted against it. I thought it was a matter of principle, but then the one time that they vote to kill debate is on a woman's right to choose.

New Democrats will always stand in unwavering support of abortion rights. We will not let regressive policies and regressive members of Parliament take us backward. We will fight back against the misinformation and the rhetoric that try to undermine our fundamental rights.

We will stand up for investments in health care. Every Canadian deserves quality health care and deserves to access the health care they need when they need it. Abortion care is health care.

Together let us affirm the right to choose, not as a procedural tactic and not as something to bring up in order to score political points, but as a cornerstone of gender equality. It is a non-negotiable. The time to act is now. I do not want Conservatives or Bloc members to avoid a vote on it.

Therefore I move:

That the question be now put.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm disgusted because I wasn't given a chance to put forward witnesses when I'm representing ground zero of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. I could have called the families who just lost their loved ones to serial killers in my riding, down the street from where I live. Not one indigenous woman, not one trans woman, was asked. It was not done in a thoughtful way. It's a way of silencing voices. I do not accept that.

Getting back to the motion on abortion, if you want to talk about the state control of bodies, indigenous women have had it the worst, including the forced sterilization of our women, that continues today.

Let me continue about being disgusted. When I have been at the forefront, since being elected, of fighting against violence and getting bills passed, I will not make apologies to Conservatives who told me and all my sisters during the national inquiry that murdered and missing indigenous women and girls were not on their radar, that pushed against affirming that what was happening to indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ was an ongoing genocide and minimized the fact that it was thousands of indigenous women. I don't want to hear about that.

I've never gotten upset in this meeting, ever. I've worked to work with everybody here. Let me go on about the state control of women's bodies, something that has never happened to men. Name one law where men's bodies are being threatened by state control. Shame. Shame. Shameful.

There's the fact that a piece of backdoor legislation was opposed by every single women's organization across the country working to end violence. It's another example of using, once again, the crisis of violence against women for political points to push forward backdoor legislation threatening abortion. It says, “Canada is failing its pregnant women and their preborn children”, something that's already protected under the Criminal Code. It was very aggressively opposed by all women's organizations across the country who are dealing with domestic violence, minus two pro-choice organizations.

There's the fact that in 2020, the current Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, claimed that Conservative MPs under his leadership would be allowed to vote their conscience on anti-choice legislation. There is no requirement in the Conservative Party to be pro-choice. This is in contrast, certainly, to the NDP. This was reported in the Toronto Star. Yet the entire Conservative Party, including the leader, even though it was opposed by all women's organizations that are dealing with violence, voted in favour of Bill C-311. This includes MPs who had previously claimed to be pro-choice. Following that vote, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada now lists all Conservative MPs as anti-choice.

It's not surprising to me that every Conservative member on the committee today voted against the motion. It's not surprising. This is about women's control over decisions. This is about the safety of women. This is about protecting women and diverse-gendered folks from state control over our bodies.

This is about protecting women from violence that is perpetrated by male Conservative members, including MP Jamil Jivani, who's best friends with Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, from Yale Law School. Jivani was previously dismissed by Bell Media for misgendering a public figure, among other reasons. Jivani's best friend, Vance, has been quoted as saying that women should stay in abusive marriages and that getting a divorce is—

Pharmacare Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is such an honour to rise again to speak about the very important bill before us to put in place the beginnings of a pharmacare strategy, particularly as it relates to free contraception and diabetes medication.

As the critic for women and gender equality, I want to focus my comments more on contraception and the fact that this is long overdue if we want to talk about reproductive rights and if we want to talk about creating societies that really, truly uphold equality for women and gender-diverse people. What I found bizarre during the debate is that so many men in this place have fought with such fury against women's reproductive rights. It almost feels like I am back in the 1800s, with the great interest by men in this place fighting against the rights of women over our bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

It is no surprise. The so-called freedom party, the Conservative Party, is certainly not free when it comes to people's bodily autonomy. I want to point to a couple of comments that were made quite recently. This was in the news today from when the Alberta Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock did an interview with a Liberal MP across the way. The Conservative member stressed that he supports Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's transgender policy that would vote to criminalize cannabis possession again if given the opportunity. Certainly with respect to bodily autonomy, he is supporting Danielle Smith. He also said, in regard to gay marriage, “I vote gay marriage down.”

It is freedom for some and not for others. I have written articles about this, actually, about how Conservatives believe in freedom for some and not for others. I would say there is not much pride in that level of homophobia, when the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock said, “I vote gay marriage down.” Happy Pride from folks in the House, except for members from the Conservative Party, who have come out with petitions not supporting trans rights. Again, it is another attack on bodily autonomy.

Here we are, talking about women's reproductive rights, and there are a whole bunch of men in the Conservative Party fighting with great enthusiasm against our reproductive rights, against trans rights and against the rights of folks to have same-sex marriage. It is not just the member for Peace River—Westlock. In fact, the member from Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, voted against same-sex marriage in the 2000s and against backdoor anti-abortion legislation, Bill C-311 just in the last session, unanimously with all the Conservatives.

When we are talking about freedom, we are not talking about freedom for women and gender-diverse persons to have control over their reproductive rights. When we talk about the transgender community, we are certainly not talking about freedom of bodily autonomy for the transgender community. In fact despite our saying “happy Pride” and raising the pride flag today, there are members of the Conservative Party saying, “I vote gay marriage down”, full stop.

It is one thing for the Conservative leader to say “love is love” and that people can support whom they want, but when it came to Jordan Peterson, known for his anti-trans rhetoric, his homophobia, and his very clear views that violate the reproductive rights of women and gender-diverse people, he came out in full support of Jordan Peterson's agenda. Is that freedom? It is freedom for some and not for others.

The NDP has fought really hard to put in place a pharmacare plan that would include a suite of contraceptives so women and diverse-gender folks can have control over their body, over their livelihood and over their life. I know there are some men in the Conservative Party who want us to go back to the rhythm method. Thank God we have gotten past that to where people can make choices about their body, certainly women, and have control by taking things like birth control. I do not know many men who are running down the street begging for a birth control pill, so the fact they have taken so much time to obstruct a feminist agenda and a woman's right to choose is really telling to me. We cannot go back to that time.

I hear more and more Conservative members tabling anti-trans petitions that have been put forward in the name of so-called protection of the bodily autonomy of women and girls. They table bills that include backdoor legislation in the name of being tough on crime for violent offenders, even though it is opposed by all women's organizations that actually deal with gender-based violence. They are now trying to vote against women and gender-diverse people's access to contraception.

I have to ask this: Why do Conservatives hate women and gender-diverse people so much? Why are they so nosy about going into people's bedrooms? Why is there a thought in their head about who somebody should sleep with or whether somebody is gay or LGBTQ? Why does the so-called freedom party care so much about looking into everybody's bedrooms and finding out what they are doing, figuring out what contraception they are taking, whom they love or whether they want to have an abortion or not? There is nothing free about the party. It feels, actually, like we are going back into the 1800s.

Then Conservatives make the excuse that it is “only” contraception or “only” diabetes medication, which is peculiar to me. It is not surprising that they would think that it is “only” contraception, because the only people I have actually heard talk about pharmacare are men. I could be wrong but I have been here for a lot of the debate. Why would they care about pharmacare? Why would they care about contraception when primarily it has been a women's responsibility historically to deal with contraception? If they want to run out at all hours of the night buying condoms, that is fine. Do they expect women and gender-diverse people to have no choice over their bodily autonomy or reproductive choices so that they can have the rhythm method? This is 2024.

The fact is that, in the midst of Pride, we have to get more security at Pride marches because of anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, and people in the Conservative caucus are cheering on Roe v. Wade, which is not the only one as there are quite a number of social Conservatives, so that we can go back to the era when women were having back-alley abortions with coat hangers and bleeding to death, or 10-year-olds in the United States were having to give birth. I do not want to listen to that hooey. It is just privileged, sexist, homophobic, transphobic hooey.

Women and gender-diverse people have fought hard for their rights. They continue to fight for their rights, and it will not be very easy to just roll over them so there can be the new dude paradise.

Women and Gender Equality

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, abortion rights are human rights, but the Liberals continue to deny equal access to that right. In New Brunswick, the Prime Minister has done nothing to address the total absence of abortion clinics throughout the province, and in Manitoba, we are at risk of losing our only abortion clinic.

A right is only as good as the ability to access it, but this is merely a dream in many rural and remote areas. Meanwhile, Conservatives, including the Conservative leader, voted in favour of backdoor legislation to threaten abortion rights, while other Conservatives have tabled anti-choice petitions and have spoken at anti-choice rallies.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has listed every Conservative MP as anti-choice after they unanimously supported Bill C-311. When abortion rights are under attack, words are not enough. The government must act to ensure everyone who needs a safe, trauma-informed abortion has access to receive one.

Second reading

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton. I am so sorry. That is totally my fault, and I take responsibility. My apologies, but I am reading verbatim.

The article reads that the coalition has always rated the member as “anti-choice and continues to do so.” It continues to say, “he has consistently voted in favour of anti-choice private member bills and motions, with just one exception”.

Here are some examples: “There's just too many other reasons to doubt [the member for Carleton's] pro-choice claims”. “Like Erin O’Toole, [the member for Carleton] would allow private member bills against abortion to be introduced and would allow a free vote.”

On Bill C-311, which is likened to an anti-abortion bill, the entire Conservative Party, including the member for Carleton, voted in favour.

That is in this Parliament, so it is not surprising to me, when we are talking about an opportunity to lift up the rights of women and gender diverse people, to lift up equality, to support a person's right to choose and to have access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care, that the Conservatives are violently opposing this legislation. Why? It is because they do not care about reproductive rights. In fact, they have actively voted against reproductive rights.

The fact is that Conservatives are going against the pharmacare bill and are talking about insurance plans. There are a lot of people in this country who do not have insurance plans, which tells me how out of touch the Conservatives are with people who are struggling. These are the people who are struggling and who they talk about all the time. They are working, not for a living wage, and have no benefits and no pension plans. They not only have fought against this benefit, should they have diabetes or should they choose to not want to get pregnant, but also have actively fought against a living wage, often in marginalized jobs, often taken up by women in marginalized communities.

Do members want to talk about freedom? It is freedom only if it suits the Conservatives' narrow, and what has been likened by some, certainly in the media, extremist rhetoric. These are things like the member for Carleton endorsing Jordan Peterson, who is anti-trans, anti-choice and anti-women.

Therefore, it is not surprising that in a bill that focuses on specifically lifting up equality in Canada, the Conservatives are conveniently fighting against it in the name of so-called “choice”. By them denying individuals' access to contraception or to the morning after pill, they are denying freedom to make a choice over one's body. This includes banning medications from young people who are transitioning, young trans kids. We need to protect trans kids. We need to protect women's rights, and we need to protect the right to choose.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to support what the NDP has fought for. It is the beginning of a pharmacare plan that will start with one of the things the NDP has championed for years: the reproductive rights of women and people who menstruate. It is a significant step forward to promote reproductive rights for women and gender-diverse people in Canada; we know, for far too long, leaders have neglected calls to improve reproductive health services. In this room today, I have heard Conservatives saying such things as that we already pay for abortion; they know very well that even the Liberal government still does not provide access to safe, trauma-informed abortion care. We are talking about the gamut of reproductive rights; that includes the ability, if one so chooses, to access contraception.

I used to be a high school sex ed teacher. One thing we would talk to the kids about was choice and how to protect themselves and their reproductive rights should they want to avoid pregnancy. I know there are Conservatives smiling because the discussion around sex, abortion and contraception is a difficult one, but these are important open discussions that we have to have, especially as we change into a society that is becoming much more inclusive in our gender diversity. I support that. The bill would allow nine million people of reproductive age in Canada to access contraception, providing them with reproductive autonomy and reducing the risk of unintended pregnancies.

However, we know that bodily autonomy is currently under attack. We have heard in the House, in fact, petitions that have been put on the floor by the Conservative Party that attack the trans community. The March for Life is happening on Thursday, and I wonder which Conservative faces we will see again this year at the campaign. Just as the colleague across the way said, the Campaign Life Coalition has labelled the Conservatives anti-choice. This is not surprising, because in this very session of Parliament, Bill C-311 was named a backdoor anti-abortion legislation in the name of so-called violence, even though it was not supported by any women's groups working with women and gender-diverse people who are experiencing violence.

The bill is also a major win for promoting the rights of economic empowerment for women and gender-diverse people in Canada. We have a right to choose what we want to do with our own bodies. I find it disturbing that, in 2024, most of the people opposing the bill in the House on the Conservative side are not even impacted by it. I do not know many men in the House who have to run to the drugstore to get birth control pills or have to use diaphragms or IUDs. This is a gender-specific issue for women and gender-diverse people. It is really appalling, because the very Conservative opposition that is talking about freedom, with a leader who talks about freedom, does not believe in freedom when it comes to bodily autonomy. The member for Carleton does not believe in freedom of religion, with the kind of Islamophobic, visceral garbage I have to hear on that side. Now they are directly attacking women's right to choose.

Bill C‑64—Time Allocation Motion

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really funny that the Conservatives are talking about health care plans. Clearly, their lives have been marred with privilege, especially because every member in the House has a pharmacare plan that is paid for by taxpayer dollars, including the member for Carleton, who has had this for over 20 years.

In saying that, I have a feeling about why the Conservatives are stalling this, and it is because something is going to freeze over before they support the reproductive rights of women and, certainly, trans folks. The opinion held by the Conservative Party on the bodily autonomy of trans folk and women has been demonstrated through things such as voting for Bill C-311, which was a piece of backdoor anti-abortion legislation. It was called out by anti-violence groups, and it was supported by the Conservatives.

Let us not be too cozy with the Liberals either. Out east in New Brunswick, people cannot access an abortion. I have spoken to the minister about it, and the fact is that access to safe trauma-informed abortion care out east is not a reality. Although the Liberals wipe their hands of it as being provincial jurisdiction, I would like to remind the them that they do provide federal transfer payments, and they are obliged to uphold the Canada Health Act. That is not happening in parts of the country.

I am concerned about the Conservatives here. I know there was a whole revolution around women getting menstrual hygiene products. Now, there is a whole revolution around women or folks who use contraception getting contraception because not everybody has a health care plan and not everybody has access to safe trauma-informed abortion care. I wonder if my hon. colleague would speak to what his government is planning to do to make sure that folks who need a safe trauma-informed abortion can have it and what he is willing to do to make sure that this pharmacare plan gets passed.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am bringing forward two petitions today.

The first petition is in regard to the fact that all of us in this House know that the level of domestic violence and violent crime across Canada has risen significantly under the Liberal government.

It is also well established in this House and across Canada that the risk of violence against pregnant women is greater, and yet the government fails to bring in any legislation that impacts our Criminal Code in this regard.

The petitioners, upset that the government has turned a blind eye to Bill C-311, are calling on the Liberal government to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances at the sentencing point, within our Criminal Code.

Carbon Pricing

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I expected no better from the Conservatives, who, in 2023, have opposed workers' rights and spread disinformation about housing.

They deny climate change. They want to reopen the abortion debate with Bill C‑311. They are betraying Ukraine. The one idea they had this year would financially harm eight out of 10 families. They are turning their backs on future generations when it comes to climate change. It is shameful.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to add what I hope are meaningful words on today’s bill. How we in this place can act to prevent intimate partner violence is an issue that has impacted my personal work here over these eight years. I know it concerns all members in this place.

Statistics Canada reports that, in 2021, there were 537 women per 100,000 people who were victims of domestic violence. Intimate partner violence accounts for almost one-third of the crimes committed in Canada and has increased 6% in the last year alone. Violent crime as a whole has increased 39%. Sexual assaults have gone up 71%. This is part of a larger pattern of increased levels of crime after eight years of the Prime Minister’s catch-and-release bail policies.

These statistics have an even greater impact when we consider that 80% of criminal activity involving an intimate partner goes unreported. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Why is there such a lack of faith in our justice system? Why do victims feel there is greater benefit in not initiating criminal proceedings? Why do they not feel protected throughout a traumatizing period in their lives?

We can point to larger trends. Between 2004 and 2014, cases where failure to comply with a court order, when they were among the charges, grew by 25%, and cases involving charges related to a breach of probation increased by 21%. When intimate partner violence is reported, insufficient steps are taken by the justice system to deter further violence. This is despite the fact that in 60% of homicides involving an intimate partner, there was a history of violence. Half of these homicides involve an offender who has already been convicted on similar offences.

The Senate sponsor of this bill referred to one particularly egregious case, which I will now put on the record in this House. In Quebec, an individual accused of femicide had committed 50 criminal offences in his lifetime, including three sexual assaults and 11 instances of domestic violence. After violating his bail conditions a third time, he was arrested, but subsequently released. Just over one week later, he murdered his former partner. No wonder trust in our system has been shattered.

For the sake of victims, we need to do a better job of listening to and acting on their concerns. Bill S-205 is about providing our justice system with every tool we can to empower victims of intimate partner violence to come forward when crimes do occur and ensure that their rights are placed above those of their offender from the start of the legal process. It would ensure victims are consulted about their safety and security needs before conditions of release are imposed on an accused person. These conditions must take the victim’s opinion into account. If the victim is an intimate partner of the accused, they have the right to be made aware of the bail conditions.

A judge may choose to require the accused to wear an electronic bracelet upon their release, effectively creating a barrier between the victim and her attacker and ensuring law enforcement is alerted if the safety perimeter is broken. The bill would also extend the length of peace bonds and increase penalties for violating them. Again, this is proposed with the victim top of mind, allowing them a larger window of time after the attack takes place.

There is always more that can be done to bolster trust in criminal justice and to encourage victims to report their attackers without fear of retribution, but as it currently stands, an individual’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanisms. This is not fair to victims, the public at large or our current understanding of intimate partner violence. What we know is not being reflected in the laws we have.

That is why this bill is one of many initiatives we should be adopting. I was pleased to speak in support of Bill C-320, or the truth in sentencing bill. It was just recently passed in the House with all-party support. The bill is another common-sense tool that would ensure we are prioritizing victims’ rights over those of the offender. At the core of Bill C-320 is transparency, which would ensure that victims are informed of why specific decisions are being made concerning an inmate’s parole date, temporary absence or work release. The victims should know all of those circumstances in advance of them happening and have the opportunity to contribute.

I am also proud of the work I did earlier this year on protecting pregnant women from violent men through Bill C-311. We know that, when women are pregnant, they are more susceptible to violence. We know that this is something that takes place in our country more than we realize when these situations are not top of mind. They are not handled within our court system in ways that draw more attention to the fact that these things are taking place.

It was affirming to me to know that the majority of Canadians who read the bill for what it was knew full well that it would have provided judges with new aggravating factors that are not consistently enforced at this time. In other words, these were Canadians who understood exactly what the purpose and intent was and that it was a very straightforward bill. At this time, a judge can choose to consider the fact that a woman was pregnant and that a child was injured, but they are not required to. This is just another scenario where, as with this bill, we need to do everything we can to protect women in situations of intimate partner violence.

There is a common theme among these bills. Victims believe that the justice system is not there for them when they choose to report their abusers. It is very clear, with the number of catch-and-release bail circumstances we find in this country, that violent crimes are continuing to take place. We need more deterrence and more reasons for individuals to reconsider, or not commit the crime in the first place, as well as to ensure that they are not carrying on with crimes when they are released prior to facing their court cases or on bail.

Individuals who are victims of violence believe that the subsequent steps that are being taken by courts after they have come forward and taken the risk of being attacked or abused for presenting their case, leave them at risk. This bill, Bill S-205, would make a significant difference in that situation. It takes a proactive approach. In other words, we are not waiting for other horrific situations to take place; we are curtailing them. That is just common sense.

This is a common-sense bill. It is about putting the victim at the centre of the judicial process and giving them more power to participate right from the start. Therefore, when the individual is facing charges and is being released, even in that circumstance, the preference is being given to protecting the victim.

I believe that we need to do everything we can in the House to pass any bill that would protect women from violence. That is certainly the case with Bill S-205. I encourage the House to move quickly and efficiently on it. It enables us to reflect even more on the opportunities that we have in this place, which we sometimes do not take for political reasons. Members can believe me that those who face violent crime cannot understand why we do not take every opportunity we have to do more to protect victims and to ensure that they are cared for.

Alleged Obstruction of Member for South Surrey—White Rock

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the offensive and unparliamentary gesture the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, Senate, made toward me last evening during private members' hour. The facts are well known already. Put bluntly, he gave me the finger.

It is my belief that this constitutes a prima facie contempt and should be taken up by the House as such. Hansard shows the sequence of events and comments that led to the incident during the debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act.

I argued that the government had lost credibility on the matter of women's rights, in part because it had failed to stand up for the victims of Paul Bernardo. As members know, this killer and serial rapist targeted female teenagers and traumatized our nation. In my speech, I referenced a unanimous consent motion that the member for Niagara Falls brought to the House. The motion reads as follows:

...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.

In my remarks, I stated that the member for Kingston and the Islands was a member who denied consent.

The House resumed from June 13 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.

Violence Against Pregnant Women Act

[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.

[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.