Karen Vecchio

[Business of the House, April 22nd, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I would like to hear from House leader of the government what our plans are for the remainder of this week and next week.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 21st, 2021]

With regard to contracts entered into between the government and Abacus Data since January 1, 2016, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total value of the contracts; (b) what are the details of each contract, including (i) the initial amount, (ii) the amended amount, if applicable, (iii) the start and end date; (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) the specific topics Abacus provided data or research on related to the contract, if applicable, (vi) whether contract was sole-sourced or competitive; (c) what are the details of all polling, surveys, or focus group research provided to the government from Abacus including the (i) date provided to the government, (ii) topics, (iii) specific questions asked to respondents, (iv) type of research (online poll, focus group, etc.), (v) number of respondents, (vi) responses received, including the number and percentage of each type of response, (vii) summary of the findings provided to the government; and (d) what are the details of all communication assistance or advice provided by Abacus, including the (i) start and end date, (ii) topics, (iii) value of related contract, (iv) summary of advice provided?

[Privilege, April 20th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-288, an act to amend the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. This bill is sponsored by the member for Sudbury.

On Sunday, April 18, 2021, the Toronto Star posted an article entitled “Liberal MP's bill aims to keep turmoil at Laurentian University from happening at other schools”. The member is quoted in the article disclosing the contents of his bill. The problem is that the bill, which was on notice at the time the article was published, was not introduced until Monday, April 19, 2021. The article attributes several statements to the member for Sudbury. The article says:

“I’m going to add post-secondary institutions to the exemptions for institutions that cannot avail themselves of CCAA protection. It’s as simple as that,” [the member stated], referring to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, which allows for court protection during financial restructuring....

The article also quotes the member as saying:

“This includes additional financial support from our CCAA lender in order to continue to operate as Laurentian implements its plans to position the university for long-term sustainability and a basis for recovery for its creditors and stakeholders.”

On March 10, 2020, the Speaker, ruled a prima facie case of privilege following the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying). The Speaker said:

...based on a reading of the Canadian Press article on Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, and in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, I must conclude that the anonymous sources mentioned were well aware of our customs and practices and chose to ignore them. It seems clear to me that the content of the bill was disclosed prematurely while it was on notice and before it was introduced in the House....

The rule on the confidentiality of bills on notice exists to ensure that members, in their role as legislators, are the first to know their content when they are introduced. Although it is completely legitimate to carry out consultations when developing a bill or to announce one’s intention to introduce a bill by referring to its public title available on the Notice Paper and Order Paper, it is forbidden to reveal specific measures contained in a bill at the time it is put on notice.

On April 19, 2016, the Speaker, in finding a prima facie case of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of contents of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying), stated:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

Another question of privilege was raised on March 19, 2001, regarding a similar matter. Speaker Milliken, on page 1840 of the House of Commons debates, supported this principle and said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

In addition, there was another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, where the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House.

Given the contents of the article, and that it was published before Bill C-288, an act to amend the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, was introduced in the House, I ask that you find a prima facie case of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I do not support conversion therapy, but I do understand some of these concerns. I will be supporting the bill, but there are some concerns when it comes to those simple dialogues that we want to have with our children.

As a parent of five children, sometimes having those dialogues can be very difficult. I know there has been a great discussion about what is or is not criminalized. I think many people are just looking for assurance.

Could the minister share her thoughts on this so those people who are concerned feel there is more balance here?

[Sex-Selective Abortion Act, April 14th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I want to start tonight's discussion regarding my multiple attempts to write this speech. I kept on changing the way I wanted to discuss it. What is my angle? Who is the audience and what do they expect? I knew I had to focus on the right tone and what specific words to say and why am I, a person strong in her belief, so worried about presenting on this important topic?

I have seen how these discussions have gone in the past, or should I say, I rightly recognize that this is not a discussion. Instead it is a debate characterized by a great deal of animosity from all sides with no resolutions. However, the bill challenges us to have a genuine discussion. The bill could be used as a potential platform to address concerns, but as I have witnessed, I am afraid there are few people willing to come to the table to have a well-intentioned, meaningful debate.

The bill should make us all think on how we feel about this subject, specifically on sex-selective abortion. I know that in these 10 minutes every word that I choose to say will be ripped and torn apart and we are losing the opportunity to have a real discussion and properly debate Bill C-233, the bill introduced by my colleague and friend from Yorkton—Melville.

This is a topic that people are very vocal on, with people being labelled as either absolutely right or completely wrong. Everyone has a label forced on them, but is that really what we want when it comes to such a complex issue? This should not be about how we feel on the right to choose to have an abortion. This is whether sex-selection abortion is happening in Canada and what is ethical in this situation. This is a subject that we just cannot win. There is no right or wrong on this issue.

When I talk about abortion, it is in general and not specific. I support women having a choice and when I speak on this issue, I recognize that there are many Canadians unaware of what our laws in Canada are. I want to go back 33 years to when there was a law. I want to share with everyone tonight the executive summary and the information available on sex-selective abortion.

One of the best and simplest summaries was a bill that the Library of Congress, prepared by Stephen Clarke, senior foreign law specialist in the United States. This where I found the best information on Canada.

Federal legislation that made the obtaining of unapproved abortion a crime was held to be unconstitutional in 1988 and has not been replaced. Canada has no legal restrictions on the obtaining of abortions. Abortion for sex selection is legal and there are reports that it is being practised. Sex selection and reproductive technology is prohibited, subject to an exemption that allows sex selection to prevent disorders or disease.

Until 1988, Canada's Criminal Code required women who wished to have an abortion to satisfy a therapeutic abortion committee established by a hospital that the continuation of her pregnancy would be likely to endanger her life. However, in the case of R. v Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, the Supreme Court held that this provision violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the charter provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived therefore, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Since 1988, Canada has not had a law prohibiting any type of abortion, including abortions for the purpose of sex selection, although there have been several attempts at legislative reforms that have failed.

We have actually heard a lot about those tonight.

The absence of an abortion law in Canada does not mean that a woman can easily obtain an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. Physicians in Canada normally do not perform abortions after the 24th week of a pregnancy unless the health of the woman is in serious jeopardy, even though they cannot be prosecuted for this. Although information on the subject is not readily available, it may also be the case that many physicians refuse to perform abortions for the purpose of sex selection.

Now, turning to in vitro fertilization, the same paper from the Library of Congress states that:

Reproductive Technology

Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act states that no person shall:

[f]or the purpose of creating a human being, perform any procedure or provide, prescribe or administer any thing that would ensure or increase the probability that an embryo will be of a particular sex, or that would identify the sex of an in vitro embryo, except to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease.

Thus, Canada does generally prohibit sex selection in embryonic procedures, except to prevent, diagnose, or treat a sex-related disorder or disease.

What I just read is from the Library of Congress in a journal written back in June 2009.

There is a much bigger discussion here that we are not permitted to talk about politically. However, I believe in facts. I believe in multiple sides on these issues. When I think about a good debate and great conversations, I think about my own family. Yes, we are all from the same family, but then we add on the in-laws and extended family and brothers-in-law who call themselves the Martyn men. We have extremely heated debates, and sometimes things can get pretty spicy. Sometimes mother sighs, “That is just enough”. However, we share unique perspectives and have had different experiences in the past that have shaped our lives and our beliefs on certain issues. One thing I recognize is that I always learn something new about someone or something during these debates. I respect them, and I respect their views on these issues.

We do not have to believe to the same degree on every single issue, and I think that is where we are today. This issue could lead us to more. It could lead us to a study of greater awareness of an issue that is happening, such as sex selection. Yes, it can be a very difficult discussion, but I believe it can be a very thoughtful discussion as well.

As I have said in the House and in committees many times, I am a Pollyanna. I do believe in the best, and I do believe that when people are committed to discuss issues with diverse opinions, they can find the right balance.

One thing that I have learned through this pandemic is that what is important to people and how people react can be very different. I recognize the vast opinions on COVID-19, and I recognize that I do not have to agree with all of the opinions in this discussion. However, here sex selection abortion becomes something we truly should look at and consider. We have the right to pro-life and pro-choice, and we have the right to question if more needs to be done or considered. I am not saying today that more needs to be done, but is there an issue with sex selection?

As I said earlier in my speech, the debate is characterized by a great deal of animosity from all sides with no resolution. There are a few people willing to come to the table to have a well-intentioned, meaningful debate. My table is always open for all opinions on this matter, for and against.

There are many things that we must challenge our presumptions on. It is important that we are willing to challenge ideas and test them against other thought patterns. That is why in every Parliament we have a government with an opposition that challenges it.

Listening does not mean that one must agree. However, today's debate is on sex selection abortion and, unfortunately, this means that many members have decided to stop listening before the conversation even begins. Does this issue deserve to be studied? Is there an issue that is actually occurring here in Canada that needs to be addressed? We cannot know if we are not willing to even start the conversation. We must be willing to at least have this conversation to discuss this difficult topic and not immediately reach for the attacks and ignore the substance of the bill itself.

I thank everybody for listening to me today, and I wish everybody the best.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 12th, 2021]

With regard to government advertising during the Super Bowl on February 7, 2021: (a) what is the total amount spent by the government on advertising during the Super Bowl broadcast, including the pregame and postgame shows; (b) what is the breakdown of how much was spent by format, including (i) English television, (ii) French television, (iii) other language television, (iv) English radio, (v) French radio, (vi) other language radio, (vii) other types of format, such as streaming services, broken down by type; (c) what is the title and description or purpose of each government advertisement that ran during the Super Bowl; and (d) how many times did each advertisement run, broken down by format?

[Petitions, March 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the third petition draws attention to the international trafficking of human organs. Once again, many petitioners, as we have seen multiple petitions on this, are asking the Canadian government to move quickly and propose legislation on this travesty.

[Petitions, March 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the next petition is to draw the government's attention to the Chinese Communist regime's persecution of the Falun Gong and to take action to end the persecution and to bring them to justice.

[Petitions, March 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of Canadians.

The first petition asks the government to acknowledge the alarming bouts of unrest in Tigray, Ethiopia. The petitioners ask the government to take action.

[Ethics, March 26th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, several committees have had their work stalled by Liberal obstruction tactics. Yesterday, the procedure and House affairs committee was obstructed by Liberals who have been talking since February 23 about everything from their favourite Christopher Nolan movie to spoiled yoghurt in their office fridges.

The Liberals continue to waste time to protect the Prime Minister from having to explain why he shut down Parliament last August when the WE scandal became too much for him. Why is this government wasting the time of the committees to protect the Prime Minister?