Debates of May 28th, 2021

Bills of Exchange Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It's 1:30 p.m. You have about one minute, literally.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni to make sure his microphone is off.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has one minute to finish her speech.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will wrap up by simply saying this. We should not just talk the talk, but walk the walk and put it in action. That is true reconciliation. Let us get this bill passed. Let us honour the work of former MP Georgina Jolibois and all indigenous peoples, their history and their culture, and get this bill passed. The House should not rise until it passes through the Senate and becomes law.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for Vancouver East for her heartfelt speech in which she really emphasized the need for action.

Everyone's thoughts are with the families of the 215 children today, as well as all the other victims, whose names are often unknown.

Aside from this day becoming symbolic and being an annual reminder, I wonder if the member could identify possible solutions for moving forward in a way that is not paternalistic.

I say this because sometimes, even in the House, people with good intentions talk about the need for economic development and so on.

The solution, however, is not to impose our way of doing things on others, but to give people the autonomy to develop in their own way and make their own decisions, whether in education or other areas, so that we can achieve a true partnership. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we must honour indigenous peoples and recognize their right to self-govern, and that in fact they did exactly that before settlers came to this land.

When we talk about action that needs to be taken by the government, and when we talk about resources, for example, we need to honour indigenous peoples and their rights, and recognize their inherent rights. Informed prior consent must also be at the heart of all of those decisions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the last question, around self-determination and development.

One of the most challenging issues that we deal with in the development space is when there are differences of opinion between different indigenous communities or there are different representative bodies, whether it is a hereditary authority structure or an elected authority structure, coming to different conclusions. My view would be that respecting the autonomy of indigenous communities, respecting self-governance, means deferring to the wishes of elected community leaders and allowing those decisions to stand.

I wonder if the member has any guidance in terms of respecting indigenous rights. From her perspective, how would we resolve these cases where there is disagreement among different representative bodies or different communities?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, part of respecting indigenous peoples would be respecting both hereditary chiefs' points of view and those of the elected bodies.

What we should do, in fact, is give them the time, space and resources to resolve these issues. All too often, as we just heard from the member, we hear people say, “This is my perspective.” Well, good on them, that is their perspective, but what we need to do is respect indigenous peoples and their voice, and their perspective.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver East for her intervention and her compassion.

I find it very disappointing that I have to stand here today and debate an issue that was already passed in the 42nd Parliament, at all stages, by our former colleague, Georgina Jolibois, and yet was blocked at the Senate. This is an important issue, and yet here we are back again, debating the same issue.

What I am hearing today is that all the parties agree this is going to pass. Does the hon. member agree that the government has to work swiftly on this to make sure this gets quick passage, and that all parties should encourage the Senate to deal with this issue ASAP to make sure this never happens again and history does not repeat itself?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question. Absolutely, every single member in this House should do everything they can to ensure that this becomes law. It was shameful that Georgina's bill did not pass the Senate in the last Parliament. Likewise, UNDRIP did not pass because of the Senate in the last Parliament. We are back in this Parliament, debating UNDRIP as well. That should never happen because of the work of the unelected Senate.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory from which I speak today and the immense privilege I carry as a settler in this land.

I would like to begin by extending my deepest condolences, and to send strength, to all who will be retraumatized by this new and devastating information regarding the realities of Indian residential schools in Canada. The remains of 215 children have been found buried on the site of a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C., using ground-penetrating radar, confirming what families and communities have known but could not substantiate until now. This new knowledge is truth. We need to confront our past and our present with truth before we can build reconciliation.

I remember when I was first introduced to the concept of residential schools. It was during my post-secondary studies, largely on my own and in conversations with family and friends. It was not taught to me in school. We only learned that Canada was a land of peacekeepers and apologetic people whose brave pioneer ancestors defied the odds in a barren land to build the country we have today.

We have worked very hard to erase the history and culture of indigenous peoples. We have also worked very hard to erase the people themselves, as well as the evidence of these crimes.

Prime Minister Harper's historic apology was largely in response to mounting potential litigation as rumours and horror stories became all too real, with well-documented acts of genocide bubbling to the surface. Yes, genocide: not simply cultural genocide, preventing language and tradition from flourishing, but the United Nations' definition of genocide.

From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article II, of the United Nations:

...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

"(a) Killing members of the group,” like throwing a child down a flight of stairs or out a third-storey window, as outlined in Isabelle Knockwood's incredible novel Out of the Depths.

“(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” like separating children from their parents and communities, like threatening those who witnessed abuse with the same fate, like force-feeding expired food, shaving sacred hair and stripping children of their given names and mother tongue, as so many experiences across the country have documented.

“(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” like deliberately exposing children to fatal diseases and being proud enough, or brazen enough, to take photos and share them in textbooks for years to come in celebration of the efforts undertaken to address the Indian problem. The problem of course in Canada was their existence.

“(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” like forced sterilizations, forced abortions and infanticide targeting specific family bloodlines, like those of hereditary chiefs or strong leaders.

“(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Sadly, we are seeing this continue, with more indigenous children in care today than were enrolled in residential schools at the height of their operation in Canada.

There were schools in almost every province and territory in Canada. New Brunswick likes to gloss over this fact, but we too had institutions where children were treated like animals or worse, and parents were stripped of their rights right here in our backyard. It was simply before Confederation, so Canada washed its hands of accountability.

In doing my own research, I studied survivor testimonials, historic news articles and official records. It took me two years to pore through the information. I wept. I was angry, and ridden with guilt and frustration.

I particularly remember watching the film We Were Children with my high school students, as their cultural teacher. I was six months pregnant with my second child: an indigenous child who would be born with the same beautiful brown skin his father has. I could not contain my emotion, as I cannot right now. My baby seemed more and more like a miracle, the descendant of survivors.

My sons have never met their great-grandparents. They died too young. We call them survivors because they came from Shubenacadie alive when so many did not. However, the nightmare of their experiences would follow them. It would continue to eat away at their souls. It would be present in their parenting styles, in their substance abuse, in their domestic violence, in their internalized racism and in their pain.

The discovery of the remains of 215 innocent children is beyond devastating. For Canada, apologies, payouts and even days of recognition will never be enough. There are 215 families who were given no answers about their babies, some as young as three years old, which is the same age as my youngest child.

When senators, leaders of political parties and everyday Canadians suggest these schools had good intentions, were not all bad or were a product of the times, I say how dare they.

Systemic murder, often in front of other children, followed with threats and intimidation and a disgusting cover-up of the use of mass graves, forged records and death certificates, this is not an isolated incident for the school. One child's death and erasure are criminal, despicable. There are 215. With the potential of more gravesites across Canada to be found now more likely than ever is genocide.

We are so quick to step on our pedestal and wave our fingers at other countries for their transgressions when our stool may well sit on the graves of indigenous children killed by church and state right here in Canada, shame, shame. There is no apology in the world that will take this pain away.

There has been a lot of talk of reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, but truth must come first, and the truth is that most Canadians have no idea of the full impact of residential schools, the residual effects and the intergenerational trauma.

Bill C-5 is a necessary step to fulfill the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to bring much-needed awareness to the horrors of the past as well as those that continue.

Make no mistake: Missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and two-spirt peoples is part of this legacy. Joyce Echaquan's death is part of this legacy. Chantel Moore's death is part of this legacy. A national day of reconciliation is only as good as the space it creates for truth, truth about what has been and truth about what is.

I fully support Bill C-5 and I stand with my colleagues in the House today to see that it becomes law. It is long overdue. It is reactive rather than proactive, however. For those children and their families, please, we must do better.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really thank our Green Party colleague for her moving and poignant speech. I do not know if this can comfort her, but we share and feel some of her emotions today.

I will go back to the question I asked a little earlier.

I would like her to talk about the way forward. There is unanimous support in the House for passing the bill to introduce this day. However, we cannot continue to be paternalistic towards indigenous communities if we are to improve this partnership and ensure that the much-talked-about reconciliation takes place. Indigenous people must be given the means to govern themselves and to make their own decisions, and we must be able to have a true partnership.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the next steps.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely the legacy of paternalism continues. I very boldly voted against Bill C-15. I know it came as a shock for a lot of people, but it was a protest. It was because we still have the Indian Act in Canada.

The parents of those children were unable to seek legal counsel because it was illegal in our country to do so. We have not done the work of reconciliation, and to pass a bill to say that it may happen with the stroke of a pen is irresponsible and it continues that paternalistic approach.

Indigenous communities have the capacity and the leadership to determine their own fate. They must be given the resources they need to do that, and that is the way forward.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I worked for the Government of Saskatchewan when it dedicated the Indian industrial school's cemetery to be a provincial historic site. I remember how powerful that ceremony was and the memory of those lost lives in unmarked graves there. It is a tragic part of our history.

I thank the member for bringing this forward and I am glad to see that we can see this is passed. This is more of a comment than a question.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I very much thank my colleague for those kind words. I mentioned my role as a teacher. I worked in a middle school in the city of Fredericton. Outside it is a very famous large cemetery. It is for members of the community from days gone by, but the children often make comments about looking outside and how sad it is to see a cemetery rather than, say, a playground or something more uplifting.

The truth is that for so many children in residential schools that was the reality. Every school had a graveyard. That reality alone should shock us all into action. The action is the key. We can be as upset as we want, we can be as moved as we want, but unless those actions follow, we are still failing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, to the member's point on action, what we know is that there has been such a delay in implementing the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls calls for justice. The government promised that it would, in fact, deliver on those last year, and we are still nowhere near.

I wonder if the member could comment on that. Should the pandemic be an excuse for the delay, or is it the opposite? Because of the pandemic, do we not actually need to step up the action?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. There is no justification for inaction on the missing and murdered indigenous women file. If anything, the pandemic has exacerbated issues specifically for women already from vulnerable communities. To see we are potentially using that as an excuse is beyond upsetting.

We also failed to follow through with the recommendations from the royal commission. We failed to follow through with the recommendations from the TRC. We have ticked off a couple boxes, but we are nowhere near what we need to achieve, so I am so frustrated.

Again, I have to mention Bill C-15, and I hope people can understand what I was trying to do with that, which was to educate. We are not there yet. We have to continue these really difficult conversations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my dear friend and colleague from Fredericton gave a very important speech. I noticed her reference to Chantel Moore, the beautiful young woman from Vancouver Island and Nuu-Chah-Nulth territory who was killed in the area where the hon. member for Fredericton lives and works.

I would like to ask the hon. member if there is any update. Has her family been given any information about how she was murdered during the course of a wellness check?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say her name as many times as I can. Chantel Moore's family deserves answers and justice, and our province can no longer sit on that report.

The report has been completed for some time now, and the family needs to see every crossed t and dotted i about what happened that night. We also need to look across Canada at what wellness checks bring on and what kinds of threats they bring to people of colour and indigenous people across the country. We continue to fail.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:50 p.m., the motion is deemed to have been adopted and Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to a national day for truth and reconciliation, is deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:51 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sex-selective abortion), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Sex-Selective Abortion Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would really like to say that I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-233, which was introduced by the member for Yorkton—Melville, but that would be a lie.

Unlike what some would have us believe, Bill C-233 does not seek to restore the balance between the situation of young girls and young boys. It is not a bill to combat sexism. It is anti-abortion legislation, period. It is a pretext, a roundabout way for the member to achieve her purpose, an attempt to reopen a debate that we hoped had been closed for several decades now. The member is shamefully using and hijacking the discourse on human rights to hide other intentions. I am not trying to freely impute motives, unlike what some of my colleagues might try to accuse me of following my speech.

This is a fairly well documented situation, which was the subject of at least two CBC reports just before the last election in which the journalists talked about new pro-life lobbying methods. As an aside, I want to mention that, in my opinion, the term “pro-life” is a term that has been overused so that people do not have to say anti-abortion, even though that is what it means.

The groups featured in these reports have abandoned certain strategies in recent years and have adopted new ones. Their stated purpose is to get dozens of anti-abortion members elected. Alissa Golob, one of the cofounders of the group RightNow, explained on camera that if, instead of spending two hours holding a sign on the sidewalk, they were to spend that time knocking on doors for a candidate, it would probably be a much more effective use of their time.

In the report that was recorded in June 2019, RightNow explained that it was employing several tactics. First, the group encourages pro-life activists to run for office. Then, during the nomination races in various ridings, it suggests to its supporters that they become members of a party that is running a pro-life candidate and that they vote for that candidate, obviously. Finally, RightNow's volunteers go door to door to find voters who would be willing to support anti-abortion politicians. The day of the election, the group encourages voters to go vote. Without specifically naming them, the lobby admitted to targeting some fifty-odd ridings during the 2019 election.

Scott Hayward, another co-founder of RightNow, explained in the same report that the group's objective was to get into the corridors of power to pass legislation that will reduce the number of abortions in Canada as much as possible. He conceded that the strategy to have a total ban on abortion was doomed to failure. This group's new strategy is to take incremental steps.

Another news report from September 2019 revealed the communications strategy of lobby groups. Their strategy is to attack the consensus that the issue of women's right to control their own bodies is a debate that should be considered to have been closed for decades.

Although the leader of the Conservative Party at the time, the current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who has openly stated that he is pro-life, said in the last election campaign that the debate would not be reopened, the same story reported otherwise. The report reminded readers that backbenchers would nevertheless have the right to introduce private members' bills seeking to restrict the right to abortion.

The group We Need a Law is another anti-abortion group. The same news report explained that its approach is to lobby the public and politicians to convince them that Canada needs an abortion law.

It is important to remember that the general situation in Canada is that we trust women to make their own decision, and we trust doctors, who receive guidelines from their associations that cover the stage of pregnancy starting at which specific criteria must be taken into consideration before they can sign off on termination. According to We Need a Law, in order to change the law, we must first change the way people think. For both We Need a Law and Right Now, that means the discourse must be refreshed, but also softened.

These days, anti-abortion groups are deliberately softening their approach. They are moving away from the all-or-nothing route and focusing more on a middle-of-the-road approach, and guess what? One of their strategies involves creating a precedent with abortion-related legislation, particularly by trying to get laws passed that seek to criminalize sex-selective abortion or to ban abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy.

Bill C-233, the bill before us today, fits that pattern exactly. It seeks to chip away at abortion rights with the stated long-term goal of making it harder and harder to access abortion. That is the frame of mind we need to put ourselves in as we examine this bill.

After all that, I have not even talked about the many other problems with Bill C-233, such as the potential interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The member for Yorkton—Melville is clearly trying to use the Criminal Code to regulate medical practice, which is not something that falls under federal jurisdiction. However, we have become accustomed to this tactic. It is something that we debated in the House just yesterday during the study of Bill C-268, which seeks to criminalize certain aspects of medical assistance in dying as a way to indirectly sabotage something for which there is a consensus, particularly in Quebec.

I am not even talking about the difficulties associated with implementing Bill C-233, which would involve a major violation of doctor-patient confidentiality for charges to be laid under the Criminal Code provisions Bill C-233 proposes.

Nor am I talking about the possible consequences of this bill for racialized people. If Bill C-233 passes, doctors could engage in profiling by only asking pregnant women of Asian or Indian origin, communities in which sex-selective abortion seems statistically more prevalent.

No, I am going to talk about what is behind Bill C-233.

I am talking about the red herring and the tactic that some members use when they say they do not want to reopen the abortion debate but then turn around and introduce bills like Bill C-233 to do just that. I urge the bill's sponsor and her leader to at least have the decency and transparency to acknowledge the real purpose of the legislation they put forward.

I was born in 1984, only four years before the Supreme Court ruled in the Morgentaler case. From that moment on, logically, my adult life should not have been punctuated by attempts to ensure that others could decide in my stead what is good for me or dictate what I should be doing with my own body. What is being proposed is a step backwards and a disservice to the progress that women's rights have supposedly made since then. That is why I believe it is still relevant to quote Simone de Beauvoir, who said, “Never forget that it only takes one political, economic or religious crisis for women's rights to be put in jeopardy. Those rights can never be taken for granted. You will have to remain vigilant your whole life”.

Let us not be fooled. Let us stay vigilant, as she said. This bill is nothing more than the umpteenth iteration of a form of antiquated bigotry temporarily clad in the guise of feminism, which is suddenly so timely. No matter how sugar-coated the pill is or how polished Bill C-233 looks, we must not lose sight of the fact that, deep down, it is motivated by values that have no place in a democratic institution.

Because I am a woman, because I am a feminist and because I am progressive, I simply cannot support Bill C-233.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-233, which is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to criminalize abortion and attack our reproductive rights. I want to acknowledge the critical work of so many advocates of Abortion Rights Coalition, who have made clear that Bill C-233 is not actually about protecting girls and women, or supporting vulnerable women, but rather, a veiled attempt to criminalize abortion in our country.

It is a bill that opens the door to racism, misogyny and abuse. Today, I acknowledge that, as I stand again in this House, in support of a woman's fundamental right to choose, that we stand on the shoulders of giants, giants like the women of the abortion caravan, trailblazers like Henry Morgentaler; feminist leaders like Judy Rebick, Carolyn Eagen, Joyce Arthur; the women of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and many more.

I think of the women and two-spirited activists who created the Native Youth Sexual Health Network and the fierce feminist activists of the Radical Handmaids.

I think of the women in my own community and in our own region who fight to make sure that women and transgender people have access to reproductive rights.

Let us get to the core of the issue. This bill is also a key part of the Conservative Party of Canada's not-so-hidden agenda. Its members tell us they have rebranded. They tell us they are pro-choice. They tell us they are pro-LGBTQ rights. They slap an emoji on it, a hashtag on it, and they are good to go. Then its members put forward bills like this one. It is not by accident and it is also not the first time.

Almost 10 years ago, in 2012, and feminist activists will remember, Motions Nos. 312 and 408 were put forward by Conservative members at that time that again, were backdoor attempts to criminalize abortion in Canada. I spoke to those motions as a member of Parliament almost 10 years ago. These motions, yes, were overwhelmingly opposed, but they were not meant to pass. They were meant to send a signal at that time, like they are today, that the Conservative Party also holds the belief that women and some transgender people should not have the choice to do what they want with their bodies. These motions were meant to send a signal that the state ought to have the final say and criminalize those who choose abortion. These motions stoke the fire of possibility of a reactionary, patriarchal view of our world where women are subservient.

If the Conservatives truly cared about gender equality and the rights of girls and women so much, what else could they do to spend their time fighting for us? My answer is: so much more. First of all, they could start by recognizing that indigenous women in this country have been and continue to be subjected to genocide. They could support the findings of the historic National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, an inquiry that they opposed and pour their energy into action on its recommendations, but instead, the Conservatives are not doing that.

It is May 2021. We are a year and some into a global pandemic. Women have borne the brunt of care work in this pandemic, in our care homes, hospitals, homes and schools as essential workers. The Conservatives could fight for them for paid sick days; for desperately needed protection; for targeted shutdowns of dangerous workplaces; for immigration status for women migrant workers and all migrant workers, but the Conservatives are not doing that. They could speak up for the thousands of Canadian women who have lost their jobs, had to leave their work, had to scale back their employment because of a lack of child care, a lack of elder care; a lack of supports. They could speak up of the she-session and the clear recognition that women in Canada have lost significant ground during this crisis. They could fight for them, for universal child care, for cancelling student debt, for free education, for affordable housing; for publicly owned compassionate models of care that value the women who need that care and the women who provide it, but the Conservatives are not doing that either. Instead, we have Bill C-233 that will set the clock back on our reproductive rights.

I am here to say that Canadian women and transgender people are not having it. Many, including in my own province, have been on the front lines of fighting for greater access to abortion, particularly the availability of Mifegymiso. Thanks to the immense public pressure from advocates of the grassroots, Mifegymiso became universally covered by the provincial government here in Manitoba.

However, the struggle continues. Many women and some transgender people still do not have access to medical or surgical abortions in real terms when they need them. Here I also want to highlight the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who aim to score points on being pro-choice but do next to nothing to make abortion services available to women across our country, particularly in northern and rural areas.

Many are fighting back. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Emily Pruder, an abortion doula and advocate for reproductive justice here in our north, who said, “Northern and rural people already face incredible barriers just to access abortion. People are often forced to travel long distances, pay for travel out of pocket and wait weeks before they can have an abortion. We don't need more barriers. This paternalistic bill is an attack on reproductive justice.”

The struggle is ongoing: for access to abortion, for control over our own bodies, for reproductive justice, for gender justice, for liberation. The struggle is not over. Women in the United States are taking on struggles in defence of reproductive rights in their home states and across their country. Women around the world, from Ireland to Argentina, have made it clear: our bodies, our choice.

Bills like Bill C-233 are not fooling women across Canada. The not-so-veiled agenda of the Conservative Party of Canada is on full display.

It is 2021. Women deserve leadership, leadership that will fight to make our lives better. Bill C-233 not only would not do that, but it would make our lives worse. That leadership starts with the fundamental respect of our right to control our own bodies, to allow us to make the choices that we know are best for who we are: when we want to get pregnant, whether we want to have kids and when we want an abortion.

Today I stand, along with so many women and so many people across our country, including my colleagues in the NDP, to state our clear and unequivocal opposition to Bill C-233, which is nothing but a not-so-veiled attack on a woman's fundamental right to choose.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with utter sadness that I rise today in the House of Commons to speak on the current issue of femicide in our country.

Unfortunately, the treatment of women as non-human and therefore not worthy of protection is not new. In ancient Athens, it was very common for couples to take newborn baby girls out to the wilderness and leave them to die: an act they called exposing the baby. “Everybody raises a son even if he is poor”, one Greek writer wrote, ”but exposes a daughter even if he is rich”.

In ancient Rome, this was just as common, especially in poor families. There are records of a lower-class Roman writing to his wife about her pregnancy: “A daughter is too burdensome and we just don't have the money; if you should bear a girl we will have to kill her.”

Even in ancient Egypt, which gave women comparatively equal rights, the poor often left kids to die. “If you have a baby before I return”, one letter shows an Egyptian man writing to his wife, “if it's a boy, let it live; if it's a girl, expose it”.

For centuries, daughters were considered lesser. Sons were given more food when food was scarce, better medical care and a better education. Boys were assets while girls were liabilities. We think, of course, that we no longer suffer from this in modern times, but medical advancements have made the problem even more complex and helped it persevere into the 21st century. Families no longer need to wait nine months to know a baby's sex. Through ultrasound imaging, families now have the ability to choose early to abort their daughters.

I know there will be some in the House who take offence at the suggestion that this even happens in Canada. Some say there is no need for any sort of legislation in our country because we do not do this here, but investigative reporting has shown that this actually is happening in Canada.

Years ago when I was having my babies, I was not even allowed to be told the sex of my child following the ultrasound because it was common knowledge that girl babies were at risk. However, here we are in a country that prides itself on statistics, data and evidence-based decision-making, and it is nothing less than outrageous to see that we do not track abortions by sex.

Let me repeat that: We do not track abortions by sex. Every Canadian woman should be absolutely shocked by this intentional exclusion, yet despite this lack of transparency, the Canadian Medical Association Journal managed to publish two research papers in 2016 studying imbalanced sex ratios at birth. These studies linked the gender imbalance to induced abortions, so I ask you this: Are we keeping these statistics hidden so we can claim ignorance, and so that the practice can continue while we turn a blind eye? Do we seriously think that we are immune because we are a progressive western society?

International organizations, including the World Health Organization, United Nations Women and United Nations Children's Fund have identified unequal sex ratios at birth as a growing problem internationally. In response, many countries have laws or policies on sex selection, including China, which has an extremely lenient framework around abortion. I do not believe we can ignore these uncomfortable facts.

The Minister of Justice recently released a statement in response to a petition submitted by my hon. colleague for Yorkton—Melville stating the government's position on the issue of sex-selective abortion. He stated unequivocally that the Government of Canada “condemns all practices that are motivated by discriminatory views of women and girls, including sex-selective practices”. Let me highlight that official statement once more: The Government of Canada condemns sex-selective practices.

With that statement on the record, and knowing that 82% of Canadians polled in 2019 did not support sex selection as a reason to terminate a pregnancy, no one could be faulted for thinking this private member's bill would sail through the House uncontested, yet when we stand up to speak out and call for an end to gender-based violence in the form of sex-selective abortion, suddenly this is twisted to claim that we are anti-women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill we are debating today is about equality. It is about women in our country who have been forced into terminating a pregnancy simply because her child is a girl.

How many times has this happened? We will likely never know, because the system is designed to hide that information. Without a law against it, without actual legislation from the leaders of our country that says “no more”, this practice will continue to happen, despite all the speeches about violence against women that we have heard from this supposedly feminist government.

Recently, at a take note debate on violence against women, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality said the following:

These conversations are important and our government will continue to create spaces for them. However, this cannot just be about words, but has to be followed by action....We lost more than 160 women to femicide last year, and one life lost is too many.

I would like to put for the minister that her numbers are off. In fact, we lost many more than 160 women to femicide last year, and yet we will never know how many. Their numbers are shrouded in darkness because discrimination continues unabated. If we do not take action and create legislation to stop the practice of sex-selective abortion, it will continue undeterred.

Many of us participated recently in what was described as a historic and momentous debate in the House concerning violence against women. I know that I and my colleagues meant what we said, and that this is truly a problem that we need to fight against. I would ask all my colleagues to consider their vote on the bill in light of their position in that debate.

It is interesting that Canada does have legislation on the books that acknowledges discrimination against a female fetus. In Canada, if in vitro fertilization is used, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act makes it illegal to choose which embryo is selected based on its sex. It demonstrates how we know in our heart that to deny a girl a basic right to life simply because she is a female is utterly wrong. How can we not insist that this applies to our naturally conceived girls as well?

I recently read an article on the occasion of International Women's Day. It was from the Sikh Research Institute, which said the following:

The Sikh culture, as envisioned in the Guru Granth Sahib and created by the Ten Nanaks, insists on the dignity and respect of all human beings. In today’s parlance, this is complete equality and equity in society. There is no stratification spectrum of inferior or superior status...be it gender or other social divisions.... In the Sikhi lifestyle, IkOankar is enshrined in every heart. The same divine light is present in all human beings. Every man and woman is an image of IkOankar.

The same basic tenet is also found in the Christian tradition. It is this kind of countercultural thinking that changed the ancient world and their practice of leaving unwanted girl babies to be exposed and unprotected, simply because they were girls.

In 180 AD, Tertullian wrote that Christians in Rome rescued the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the garbage and dung heaps, and raised them as their own. Their belief that each individual person had worth because they were created in the image of God was foreign to the society at the time, where the state, the tribe and the collective were the only values they knew.

The right of a woman to live life as an equal, safe from violence and discrimination must apply to all stages of her being. As a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a teenager, a mother and a grandmother, every stage must be protected by society. When we take action by enshrining those protections in law, we move forward as a country, demonstrating that we understand the intrinsic value of every individual who calls this place home.

I urge all my colleagues in the House to consider their vote carefully and support the women this bill would protect.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sex-selective abortion, at second reading.

I really wish I did not have to do this. I am, quite frankly, disappointed that I have to spend time in the year 2021 on the abortion debate in Canada, when a woman's right to choose has been law for over 30 years. It really is unfortunate that members of Parliament are still seeking to restrict that right.

The sponsor claims that this bill is to address sex-based discrimination. To achieve that goal, this bill would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting doctors from performing an abortion when they know it is being sought solely on the grounds of the genetic sex of the fetus.

While I note that the offence is ostensibly aimed at doctors, I must point out that it would also criminalize women as parties to the offence. Make no mistake, Bill C-233 will limit a woman's right to choose by doing this. Criminalizing a woman for seeking an abortion is a violation of the fundamental rights of women in Canada, and it is just plain wrong.

I would like to speak to what we know about the impact of using criminal law to regulate abortion. We need not look further than Canada's own legal history of abortion regulation and its impact on Canadian women. That history reflects what the international evidence tells us. Criminal restrictions on abortion result in women having less access to them, and having less access negatively impacts women's equality rights.

Let us take a look at how we got to where we are today. Currently, no criminal offences apply to abortion, and the provinces and territories are responsible for providing safe abortion services to Canadian women. However, we must not forget that, until 1969, abortion was absolutely prohibited in Canada. That meant that very few, if any, safe options were available to women. Women were forced to either bring an unwanted pregnancy to term or access unsafe and unregulated methods such as back alley abortions, which often led to infection and death.

Women who sought abortions also risked criminal sanctions, and doctors who provided safe abortions risked punishment. Many of us will remember Dr. Morgentaler. He was incarcerated for saving women's lives. He risked his own safety to champion women's rights and for that he was awarded the Order of Canada in 2008.

I cannot emphasize enough how much we do not want to return to that era. I am proud to live in a country where women have safe access to abortion and do not need to worry about criminal reprisals. Again, I am very disappointed to be here today having to fight against an attempt to limit these hard-earned and important rights.

The evidence before the court in the Morgentaler case highlighted the medical risks and psychological trauma restricting access to abortion caused women seeking abortion services in Canada, and the importance of affording women autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies. The provisions were found to violate women's security of the person rights.

This is because, and I quote Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman justice of the Supreme Court, who said that those provisions asserted that, “the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state.”

The court found the violation of women's rights by limiting access to abortion to be completely unacceptable, and so do I. The court has been very clear on this front, and I think that a court could also find this legislation unconstitutional for the same reasons, should it pass.

The 1969 provisions remained in the Criminal Code, but were unenforceable until they were repealed in 2019 by our government in the former Bill C-75. Other related abortion offences were repealed by our government in 2018 in former Bill C-51. Even though they were inoperable, I am proud that our government took the important step to remove these discriminatory provisions.

It took more than 100 years to remove abortion-related criminal offences from our Criminal Code, which is, frankly, a shameful mark. However, again, I am quite proud to be part of the government that finally removed them from the books, and I have no intention of supporting any attempt to add them back.

Consistent with the Canadian experience, international research has shown that using the criminal law to regulate any aspect of abortion results in barriers to accessing abortion services, which contributes to gender inequality. For example, international research indicates that laws restricting the use of technology for sex selection purposes, as well as sex-selective abortions, are likely to have harmful impacts on women. These impacts include women seeking unsafe procedures that fall outside regulations, protocols and monitoring.

I fail to see how criminalizing women who choose sex-selection abortion, perhaps because of familial pressure to do so, protects them, or other women for that matter, from discrimination. Rather, a criminal law response is more likely to detract from women's equality rights by creating barriers to accessing abortion.

The United Nations recommends combatting this form of discrimination by addressing the root causes of gender inequality. This includes focusing on advancing access to education, health services and economic resources for women and girls. I am pleased to note that our government has made significant investments to advance gender equality, guided by women and the framework for assessing gender equality results, introduced in budget 2018.

Criminalizing women seeking abortion is not the solution to this problem and would be a massive step backwards for this country. I cannot emphasize enough how disappointed I am to see that there is yet another attempt in this bill to limit a woman's right to choose.

In Canada, I am proud to say that abortion is treated like the medical service that it is and falls within the responsibility of the provincial and territorial health sector. All medical procedures are subject to medical professional standards.

Ultimately, what could happen if we were to enact an offence such as this? Perhaps doctors would refuse to provide abortion services out of fear of criminalization, because they believe their patient may be choosing abortion for the wrong reasons. Perhaps a woman who needs access to an abortion would be afraid to seek it out in case she is reported and charged for having done so. Perhaps women from certain communities would be denied access to abortion based on discriminatory views about their reason for seeking it. In short, I fear that this bill could undo decades of arduous work to ensure that women never face these barriers again.

I was really disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition indicate that his caucus will be allowed a free vote on such a fundamental issue as protecting women's right to choose.

I hope that members of the Conservative Party who are currently heckling me will recognize, as all other members of this House do, how important it is to protect equality rights for women in Canada and join me and the government in voting against this proposed legislation.