Debates of June 13th, 2023

Violence Against Pregnant Women Act

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Can they do it endlessly?

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

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

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

The hon. member for Niagara Falls.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

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

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

I am hearing “no” again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me quote it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is on the motion.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Alleged Intimidation of Member

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

That is fair enough, Mr. Speaker.

I want to address what the member for Winnipeg North said in his response, because in my view, he blatantly misstated things and, frankly, should be withdrawing some of his comments.

I do not have an exact quote here, but the member said the question that I applauded to, asked by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, was basically a sullying of his reputation. However, there was no such thing in that question whatsoever. This is what the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said in part when he referenced Justice Iacobucci:

We have the Prime Minister, who hired his friend, paying him $1,500 a day. That friend then hired Liberals. He hired Frank Iacobucci, from the Trudeau Foundation. He hired Liberal insiders, such as Sheila Block, and now we have this rapporteur....

That was the end. That was not the way it was conveyed by the member for Winnipeg North, and he should be ashamed for the framing of this. Furthermore, he talked about this being about the Italian community and not the legal community, and this was not necessarily raised yesterday when I spoke. The reality is—

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

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

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I raised my question of privilege, the Minister of Justice had not gone to the media, and the member for Winnipeg North had not spoken. This is not about impugning somebody's reputation in the legal community. It is about impugning their reputation in the Italian community.

A member's privilege is fettered when they are intimidated from speaking based on something like clapping. In my respectful view, it should be a foregone conclusion that damaging or sullying someone's reputation in their cultural community is as bad as, if not worse than, sullying their reputation in the legal community. However, we have the member for Winnipeg North reading something, presumably from the PMO, that does just that and justifies it. The Liberals are victim blaming in this case in what is an obvious overstep by the Attorney General.

I will end with this. The member deliberately used the term “thin skin”. I would have challenged him or the member for Kingston and the Islands, who said it to me earlier, to come to work with me for one week when I was prosecuting sexual offences against children to see if they could last. That was a completely inappropriate comment. He should retract it and he should apologize. He should not be doing this to hon. members in this House, because it is dishonourable conduct.

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

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

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]