Cassie and Molly's Law

This morning MP Cathay Wagantall introduced a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-225 into Parliament. (See Molly Matters for more information on Molly and Cassie.)

More info here.

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:

http://www.parl.gc.ca

1st Session, 42nd Parliament

64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

Preamble

Whereas Cassie Kaake was seven months pregnant and eagerly anticipating the birth of her daughter Molly when she was brutally murdered in Windsor, Ontario, in 2014;

Whereas no charges could be laid for Molly’s death because existing criminal law does not recognize the injury or death caused to a preborn child as a separate offence when a pregnant woman is the victim of a crime, even if the sole purpose of her attacker is to kill her child;

Whereas not being considered a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve protection under the law;

Whereas a majority of Canadians support the adoption of legislation that would make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother;

Whereas Parliament wishes to address this gap in the law and allow for two charges to be laid in such circumstances;

And whereas Parliament wishes to more strongly denounce violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short Title

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Offence — causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence

(2) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes the death of her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) if the person means to cause injury or death to the preborn child or injury to the mother that the person knows is likely to cause the preborn child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years,

(ii) if the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the preborn child, to imprisonment for life, or

(iii) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Reduced punishment

(3) An offence that would otherwise be punishable under subparagraph (2)‍(a)‍(i) may be punishable by imprisonment for life if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as described in section 232.

Offence — injuring a preborn child while committing an offence

(4) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes injury to her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding10 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Separate offence

(5) An offence referred to in this section is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the preborn child.

3 Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who they knew was pregnant,

4 Section 743.‍6 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.‍2):

Power of court to delay parole

(1.‍3) Despite section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, including a sentence of imprisonment for life, on conviction for an offence under subsection 238.‍1(2), the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with that Act.

That pesky thing called conscience

From MP Ed Komarnicki:

M-590 — March 26, 2015 — Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.

So how will the Liberals and NDP vote on this motion? I guess we'll find out.

"...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

MP Maurice Vellacott puts two motions on the Notice Paper

As Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca points out, Mr. Vellacott has given Canadians two early Christmas presents.

See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.

M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

Duffy VS Harper: Dueling conservative duo

Who said what when? How will it end? Will Harper? Will Duffy? Who knows? The Shadow knows.

Stay tuned to the next shocking episode of this season's new hit show, shot live in Ottawa:

As The Senate Turns

(On the front page of today's National Post)

To the Prime Minister: the flowers are coming

Gotta love that Brad Trost:
“We should send a big bouquet of roses straight over to PMO. If they want to keep this issue quiet, they’ve done anything but.”

Gotta love that PMO:
"The Prime Minister’s Office wouldn’t comment on Trost’s remarks specifically. “That being said, the Prime Minister has always been clear the government will not reopen this debate,” said spokesman Carl Vallee."

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

No shaving cream. Sherlock. Tell me something. I didn't know? If you'd only let. Mark's Motion. Be debated. In Parliament. The debate. Would. Be closed. Now. But you didn't. So the debate. Continues. In the media. And everywhere. Even the Liberals. Are debating it. In Parliament. Yesterday. With you. Or without you. Mr. Harper. Even the Globe. Is debating it. Imagine that. Well thank you. Anyway. Mr. Harper. For allowing. The debate. To be open. We couldn't have. Done it. Without you.

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

Freedom of speech: winners win, losers suppress

George Jonas is not talking specifically about abortion in this article; rather about freedom of speech issues at Queen's University.

Yet his comments are applicable to the abortion debate in general, and in particular, to what happened recently with Mark Warawa's Motion 408 being killed two weeks ago.

All of Parliament went into top-down, lock-down mode, on freedom of speech rights when this happened.

The following is the discussion Mr. Jonas had with his father:
"Assume you come upon a bitter dispute,” I remember saying to my father many years ago, “with the two sides ready to kill each other.”

“Okay,” my father said, “so far it’s easy.”

“Assume further,” I continued, “that you have no inkling what the dispute is all about, and the more people try to explain it to you, the less you understand it. How can you tell who is right?”

Father thought you couldn’t, not for sure, anyway, without understanding the issues, but you could still take a pretty shrewd guess. “See which side is trying to stop the other from speaking,” he said. “That’s the side that’s likely to be wrong.”

“Wrong to do it or wrong on the merits?”

“Both,” father said. I still remember it. It’s not foolproof, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Show me someone who silences or censors another, and I’ll show you someone with a losing argument. Winners win, losers suppress — that’s how the game plays out most of the time. Except, of course, if the losers suppress successfully, the winners lose."

The politically correct pro-choicers in this country, including most MPs and the Prime Minister, don't want us to talk about abortion. They don't want us talking about abortion in Parliament. They don't want us talking about abortion in the Universities.

They don't want us talking about abortion period.

Of course that doesn't mean we won't talk about abortion. We will. They can try and suppress us but they can't. Because the pro-abortions only have losing arguments.

Abortion - the third rail of politics - touch it and you’re dead

Margaret Somerville asks us some very important questions today in her article on Why we should talk about sex-selection abortion and what is happening in our Parliament.

Here is part of what Dr. Somerville had to say:

"...Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not want any discussion of abortion, in his case, in Parliament. He had stated that the government would not support Motion 408. But was he speaking of “his,” “our,” or “the” government? The differences among these qualifying words can convey different messages.

“His” government strongly indicates Harper will tell members of cabinet and, sometimes, perhaps, all Conservative MPs, how to vote. “Our” government could mean the cabinet or the Conservative caucus decides the stance to be taken, or it could refer to Canadians and mean that MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

“The” government is less ambiguous — it’s the Canadian government, and, in a representative democracy, MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

We know that most Canadians abhor discrimination against girls and women and that 92 per cent of Canadians believe that sex-selective abortion is wrong and should not occur in Canada. So why wouldn’t the government support this motion, and would even, keeping in mind that Harper said it was “unfortunate” that Motion 312 had not been found non-unvotable, possibly go so far as to prevent discussion of it?

The short answer is that, yet again, they don’t want to touch the third rail of politics — touch it and you’re dead: abortion.

...And Ambrose’s excuse that she will vote against Motion 408 “only because it has been set up that way” — that is, is connected with abortion — doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible to discuss a motion on sex-selective abortion or vote on it, whether for or against, without mentioning abortion.

Just earlier this month, Harper strongly condemned violence and discrimination against women in his press release statement for International Women’s Day. Yet he is not prepared to vote against sex-selective abortion, and is prepared to force other cabinet ministers not to do so, regardless of their conscientious beliefs in this regard.

It’s true that recognizing sex-selective abortion as an instance of discrimination against women might sensitize more of us to the violence that all abortion involves. But not being able to face the reality of what is involved in abortion can be a warning from our moral intuitions that what we are doing is unethical, and it can result in our suppressing an emotional response to abortion that we would ignore at our ethical peril.

And a final question: To what extent is a failure to condemn sex-selective abortion, when confronted with the question as a lawmaker, or taking steps to prevent it being discussed, a passive endorsement of it?

I would answer Dr. Somerville's last question, by saying that if you fail to condemn sex-selection abortion, it's far worse than passive endorsement. Your refusal to discuss the subject, tells us all we need to know.

If Warawa's M-408 now - who's next?

The democratic process is alive and well in Canada...except when it comes to any subject related to prenatal human life.

We see this time and time again on our campuses, in our Parliament, in our media, and now we see it even affecting private member's business (PMB). PMB is not government business. It is individual member's chance to introduce motions or bills that they or their constituents feel is important.

On Thursday last week, MP Mark Warawa's Private Member's Motion 408, "that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination" was deemed non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This means that the motion will not be allowed to go before Parliament to be voted on by members in the House. Yet according to an impartial Library of Parliament analyst, M-408 passed all the votability criteria and therefore should have been deemed votable, according to strict rules of the House.

Yet representatives from all three parties unanimously voted against it.

Pro-lifers have grown used to having MPs vote against anything that attempts to provide any legal protection for the unborn. However to date, our elected representatives have been at least allowed to bring forward private member's bills and motions. Now it seems that avenue might be closing as well.

One would think that the opposition parties would at least stand up for democracy if they can't bring themselves to ever stand up for the unborn. In this case, however, they sided with the Conservative MP on the committee. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that all three parties were whipped into voting against allowing the Motion to proceed to a vote.

It is a well known fact that Prime Minister Harper will never bring forward abortion legislation, and all other parties have an official "pro-choice" stand on abortion. There is unanimous distaste amongst all political parties for anything remotely related to abortion. But so what?

Parliament is supposed to exist to serve the people. Parliament is not supposed to exist to serve the politicians.

Since the parties represent the people--all the people, even those they don't agree with--all viewpoints must be respected, discussed and debated as the public wishes. This motion had a lot of public support, and a recent (2011) Environics poll told us that 92% of Canadians are against sex selective abortions. In fact, leaders from all the major parties spoke out against sex selection prior to the introduction of this motion. To all of a sudden unilaterally prevent our elected MPs from voting on this issue in Parliament, is a perversion of the democratic process that is our right.

Democracy in Canada should not apply only when it is convenient for our political leaders. When we allow this kind of behaviour, that arbitrarily deems some topics worthy of discussion and others not worthy, democracy loses its meaning.

All three parties are pro-choice. If the democratic process can be subverted simply because of a pre-existing bias by those in power, it is only a matter of time before another topic suffers the same fate.

Mr. Warawa will be appealing the non-votability ruling to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) on Wednesday. If the PROC committee upholds the non-votability ruling, Mr. Warawa has said he will take the unprecedented step of appealing that ruling to the House where a secret ballot of all Members will take place over the course of two days. That vote will determine whether or not M-408 will be allowed to proceed to a vote. In effect, it will be a vote for or against democracy in our Canadian Parliament.

It is quite a sad irony that something so small and vulnerable as the child in the womb can instill so much fear in our political leaders, that they are willing to sacrifice one of our most cherished Canadian values--democracy itself—in order to shield themselves from the truth about what abortion involves.

Opposition leaders need to speak out

Dear Ms. May, Mr. Rae, and Mr. Mulcair,

As you know, last week MP Mark Warawa's Private Member's Motion 408, "that the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination", was deemed non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This means that the motion will not be allowed to go before Parliament to be voted on by members in the House. Yet the Motion was in fact deemed to be votable by the impartial Library of Parliament according to strict rules by the House.

I understand that the three of you are all pro-choice and that your parties are also pro-choice. Although I do not agree with the pro-choice position, which apparently is always against any legal protection for the unborn, in a democratic society, you and your parties are free to have these views.

What I don't understand, is why none of you have publicly spoken out against this perversion of the democratic process in Parliament, that took place in deeming this Motion non-votable. The fact that you are all pro-choice should have no bearing on the politics that allowed this to occur.

As leaders of the opposition parties, your role is to ensure that the government in power is accountable to the people, and such attacks on democracy are prevented.

Will you please look at this situation and bring your influence to remedy it? Democracy is waiting for you, and so are all Canadians.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Putting the opposition in its place

This. Is disturbing. On a couple of levels:
“The concern about Mr. Warawa’s motion is that the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion so it becomes a very divisive issue. I haven’t decided but I will probably vote with the cabinet which is going to be voting against it, only because it has been set up that way.”

Minister Rona Ambrose said this regarding Mark Warawa's motion to condemn “discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”

The most obvious reason Ms. Ambrose's statement is troubling, is because how can anyone not condemn sex-selection abortion? Just yesterday Mr. Harper issued a press release that said:
"Our Government supports grassroots organizations across the country for community projects aimed at ending violence against women and girls. These include initiatives addressing violence against women in four key areas: violence committed in the name of so-called ‘honour’; the trafficking of women and girls; women and girls in high-risk neighbourhoods; and engaging men and boys..."

We also know that Mr. Harper has stated that his government will not support the Motion.

Yet our Government says they are against violence against women and girls, but can't bring themselves to condemn violence against girl babies before they are born. This makes no sense.

The second reason Ms. Ambrose statement is of concern is this part:
"The concern about Mr. Warawa’s motion is that the opposition has positioned it as an issue about abortion so it becomes a very divisive issue."

Of course the opposition has positioned the Motion as an issue about abortion, this is what the opposition does. Whenever they can make anything an issue about abortion, they do it. And it's divisive because we play into the opposition's fear mongering and allow them to bully us into feeling threatened by the motion, making the motion something that it clearly isn't. When the opposition goes into attack mode on any other issue in this country, do we then say: "Oh dear, I better not vote for something that makes perfect sense because the opposition won't like it"?

Is that how our Cabinet Ministers work in Parliament? Become afraid of voting a particular way because the opposition will make it "divisive"? No it isn't. At least it isn't for any other topic. Only topics that pertain to pre-born children, get this special treatment.

I hope that Ms. Ambrose and all of the cabinet, including Mr. Harper, will look at the Motion and vote with their conscience, and not vote in a way that kowtows to the shrillness of the opposition who imagines things that are not even there.

New reality TV show

In a new reality TV show to be aired this fall called Woman to decide what she does with her body, we see a rare and unusual pairing of the NDP and Conservatives.

I take you now to the the entertainment capital of the world (Parliament Hill) where the show's pilot was taped. 

The first show opens up with Ms. Francoise Boivin standing in the House of Commons, looking admiringly at Mr. Stephen Harper.

We are transfixed as we listen to what this NDP MP is telling Mr. Harper about Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

This is what she said:
“I appreciate that the prime minister…has clearly stated that there will be no support for M-312...before the birth there is absolutely no point for me to tell you what I think because the law in Canada is it’s up to the woman to decide what she does with her body,”

Yes TV watchers you heard it right. Ms. Boivin likes what the Prime Minister is doing. I am not kidding. And you heard it here first.

What a show this will be. The NDP and the Conservatives. Together. For the very first time. If I hadn't heard and seen the taping of this groundbreaking show for myself, I wouldn't have believed it.

With a season opener like that, this reporter is unclear as to what we can expect next. Because Parliament has only just begun. But I think we can expect a lot of high drama during this session.

Maybe in upcoming shows, Ms. Boivin will learn that there are actually two distinct bodies when a woman becomes pregnant. How will she react? Will she get it? What will she do? Will she change her tune? Will she become a Social Conservative? We just don't know.

Which is why it is really really really important that you stay tuned. To this station. This fall. I am not kidding.

(Disclaimer. This story is pure fantasy. Or not. You be the judge. It was inspired when I read Daniel Proussalidis PM Sides with NDP on ‘human life’ motion)

CCBR in Ottawa July 2, 2012

The New Abortion Caravan: Presentation - Ottawa Ontario , July 2, 2012 - Introduction of the Team

This amazing team tells us how they are changing hearts and minds, one human being at a time.
Introductions:



Jonathon Van Maren tells us about Canada's abortion killing fields, Part 1:



Jonathon's talk, Part 2:



Stephanie Gray tells us that CCBR has set a deadline of 18 years to end the killing of preborn children.

Stephanie also says:
"It is time to take this sacred cow of Canada's abortions rights movement, and redeem it."

Stephanie's talk, Part 1:



Stephanie's talk, Part 2:

Stephanie quotes Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860):

"Truth passes through three stages:
First - it is ridiculed
Second - it is violently opposed
Third - it is accepted as being self-evident"



Stephanie's talk part 3, where we go from here:
"If we can't face it, we can't fight it."



Q&A, part 1:



Q&A, Part 2:



Videos by Patricia Maloney
Editing by Maureen Ward

Long winding road to read petition

(or Petitions 101)

On March 12, 2012, I emailed my Member of Parliament Mauril Belanger, and asked him to read a petition with 25 signatures. I was told by his office to send them in, which I did, and by which time I  had 50 signatures.

This was my petition:
"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion; And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation; Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

Simple, right? Wrong.

Now remember, I am not allowed to just waltz into the House of Commons any time I please, and stand up there and read my own petition in Parliament. No siree, I can't do that. I must follow the rules, and the rules say that I have to get my MP to do that (1).

I continued to email and call Mr. Belanger's office on a regular basis for the next two months, to ask if he would first of all, read my petition in the House, and second, when would he do it? I never got any absolute confirmation to either of these questions until May 24 when I was told it would be "tabled" in Parliament, but not "read".

Now I wasn't exactly sure what "tabled" meant and how that differed from "read". And this was not the first time Mr. Belanger's office had used this word. I always used the word "read", since that is what I asked my representative in Parliament to do for me: to "read" my petition. So I needed to do a bit of research.

There are two ways to "present" a petition. One is done orally by an MP (tabled and read in the House and written up in the Debates (Hansard) and Journal), and the other is to file it with the Clerk of the Petitions (tabled only and written up in the Journal only) (2). In both cases, the government responds officially to the MP. (3)

I thought about this and decided that no, if I couldn’t have my petition actually read orally in the House, and written up in the Debates, then I didn't want it just "tabled" (i.e. filed with the Clerk of the Petitions only). I wanted my petition back.

So on May 25 I called again and spoke with Mr. Belanger.

It was quite the interesting conversation.

I asked Mr. Belanger if he was going to read my petition. He said no. I said, okay, then I want it back unless you are going to read it. He said I will not read it and it has already been certified. I said I don't care what's happened to it, it's my petition and unless you are going to read it in the House I want it back. He said no. I asked him why he refused to read it. He said that it was his choice to read it, or not to read it. I am not kidding. I asked him if he was always rude to his constituents. He said he wasn't being rude. I said I want my petition back. He said no. I said I want my petition back. He hung up on me.

So I made a few phone calls...

And then, miracle of miracles, last Thursday I received another email from Mr. Belanger's office. This is what it said:
"Enclosed you will find the electronic link to the Hansard of yesterday. My colleague Sean Casey, Liberal M.P. for Charlottetown, presented the petition you had sent to my office, as per your wish that it be read into the record as opposed to being tabled."

Please refer to page 8574:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/House/411/Debates/130/HAN130-E.PDF

Halleluiah! My Petition had been read. In the House of Commons. By an MP. Which is all I ever wanted.

And here is what was said in the House of Commons, and is now in the Debates (Hansard) record:
"Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, each of which may sound a bit familiar given the petitions that have already been presented today. The first one is on behalf of residents of the greater Ottawa area, including Gloucester, Nepean and Orléans. The petitioners point out that Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea,without any laws restricting abortion. They call upon the House of Commons to speedily enact legislation that would restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. "

Persistence paid off.

(1) Presentation of Petitions
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch22&Seq=4&Language=E
"As outsiders are not permitted to address the House directly, petitions are presented by Members. Therefore, groups and individuals with petitions for the House must enlist the aid of Members to have their petitions certified and presented. Members are not bound to present petitions and cannot be compelled to do so; [53]  nevertheless, it is evident that many Members consider it a duty to present to the House petitions brought forward by citizens. [54]  The Member, whose role it is to make the presentation on behalf of the petitioners, is not required to be in agreement with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be drawn. [55] 

(2) "Certified petitions may be presented in two ways: orally during Routine Proceedings, [62]  or by filing them with the Clerk of the House during any sitting of the House. [63]  In practice, the majority of petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings"

(eg. Statistics compiled by the Clerk of Petitions indicate that 2107 of 2361 petitions presented in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1996-97) were presented orally during Routine Proceedings)

"When petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings, the Members’ remarks are recorded, transcribed and printed in the Debates for that day. An entry is also made in the Journals, the official record of House proceedings. The petitions are listed as having been certified correct and presented pursuant to the Standing Orders. Petitions filed with the Clerk are of course not mentioned in the Debates, but they are listed in the Journals. Certified petitions once presented to the House (by either method) are then delivered to the Clerk of Petitions who is responsible for their reception and processing."

(3) Government Responses to Petitions  http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/PracticalGuides/Petitions/petitionsPG2008__Pg04-e.htm

Educating Francoise (part deux)

Oh dear. Francoise is at it again.

On Monday this week, Ms. Boivin got up again in Parliament to talk about abortion. Now Ms. Boivin can talk about abortion all she likes. That's fine. But it's the strange things she says that makes me twitch.

Like:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to denounce certain government MPs' attempts to criminalize abortion. Of course, they know that their approach is extremely unpopular with women who hate it when men try to tell them what to do with their bodies.”

I have to ask myself, exactly which women are you talking about Francoise? Would that be me? Would that be some of my women friends? Because I can let you in on a little secret. Any "approach", by any MP, to put limits on abortion is not unpopular with us, it is actually very very popular with us. Really.

I almost get the impression that you might be thinking that you speak for us women. I have that wrong though, right? Because, and I know this might come as a shock Ms. Boivin, but you don’t actually speak for us at all. Not now. Not ever.

And you do understand that nobody is telling any woman what to do with her body right? This is somebody else’s body. But I think you already know that Francoise. I think you’re pulling my leg.

Then you say:

“That is why these members are drawing inspiration from the Republican Party and using roundabout ways and bogus motions that are based on pseudo-science.”

Ms. Boivin, are you a clairvoyant that you know where MPs get their inspiration from? Wow, lucky you.

And pseudo-science? Let me see...nope, no pseudo-science here: An unborn child is human, since it comes from, you know, a human mother and a human father. Yep. Definitely human. That's science. Biology actually.

And finally this:

“Canadian women have a right to access abortion and this backwards-thinking government cannot take that away from them.”

Francoise I think we’ve had this particular discussion before. And nothing has changed since the last time we spoke.

What is this right to abortion you keep talking about? Did you make that up? There is no Charter right to abortion Ms. Boivin, I don’t care if you say it 100 times. It doesn't change anything.

So for your homework Francoise, please write this 100 times in your scribbler:

"I do not speak for women. An unborn child is not a part of a woman's body. There is no constitutional right to abortion in Canada".

When you're done, we can talk again.

Abortion petitions include 3,816 names

Further to my good news story about abortion related petitions being read in Parliament, I have learned the actual number of names on the petitions, and the MPs who read them.

I don't know, but I think we really need to continue doing this across the country. We need to continue gathering signatures and telling our politicians that we want protection for unborn children.

Here again are the links ARPA has on their website for the first two petitions below, here and here, for you to print and get more signatures.

We can't stop doing this.

Petitions Regarding Abortion

Presented in the House of Commons during the 1^st session of the 41^st Parliament

#1:

"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion;

And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0374	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Feb 1, 2012	138
411-0416	Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River)	Feb 7, 2012	139
411-0422	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Feb 8, 2012	99
411-0455	Mr. Allison (Niagara West-Glanbrook)	Feb 13, 2012	113
411-0457	Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain)	Feb 13, 2012	25
411-0484	Mr. VanKesteren (Chatham-Kent-Essex)	Feb 15, 2012	139
411-0493	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	25
411-0494	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	70
411-0495	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	66
411-0496	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	50
411-0539	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Feb 29, 2012	47
411-0540	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Feb 29, 2012	220
411-0543	Mr. Tilson (Dufferin-Caledon)	Feb 29, 2012	25
411-0553	Mr. Komarkicki (Souris-Moose Mountain)	Mar 1, 2012	75
411-0563	Mr. Warawa (Langley)	Mar 1, 2012	25
411-0575	Mr. Sweet (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale)	Mar 2, 2012	194
411-0576	Mr. Rajotte (Edmonton-Leduc)	Mar 2, 2012	35
411-0587	Mr. Warawa (Langley)	Mar 5, 2012	41
411-0636	Mr. Tweed (Brandon-Souris)	Mar 12, 2012	89
411-0647	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	25
411-0648	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	85
411-0649	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	56
411-0650	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	64
411-0655	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	130
411-0656	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	44
411-0657	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	80
411-0673	Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)	Mar 14, 2012	99
411-0674	Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)	Mar 14, 2012	102
411-0686	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	79
411-0687	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0688	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0689	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	42
411-0690	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0703	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Mar 15, 2012	116
411-0711	Mr. Sopuck (Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette)	Mar 16, 2012	30
411-0729	Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Mar 26, 2012	40
411-0742	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Mar 27, 2012	75
411-0769	Mr. Wallace (Burlington)	Mar 29, 2012	143
411-0777	Mr. Schellenberger (Perth-Wellington)	Mar 30, 2012	27
411-0829	Mr. Braid (Kitchener Waterloo)	Apr 5, 2012	50
411-0831	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	92
411-0832	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	29
TOTAL SIGNATURES			3,098

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

#2:

"Whereas Canada’s 400 year old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to twenty-first century medical evidence;

And whereas Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending Section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect twenty-first century medical evidence."

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0677	Mr. Hoback (Prince-Albert)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0685	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	26
411-0695	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 14, 2012	50
411-0704	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Mar 15, 2012	99
411-0730	Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Mar 26, 2012	37
411-0733	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Mar 26, 2012	25
411-0768	Mr. Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound)	Mar 29, 2012	52
411-0780	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Apr 2, 2012	25
411-0783	Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre)	Apr 2, 2012	25
411-0810	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Apr 4, 2012	52
411-0813	Mr. Kamp (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission)	Apr 4, 2012	52
411-0828	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Apr 4, 2012	75
411-0833	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	96
TOTAL SIGNATURES			639

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

#3:

We, the undersigned Citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

That the Supreme Courte on January 28^th 1988 stated that it is for Parliament to enact the appropriate defences of its legitimate interest in the lives of all subjects, including those yet in the womb.

That a destructive vacuity in the Criminal Code has resulted in the failure of the Supreme Court to strike down the phrase ‘after becoming a human being’ (223(2)) along with the then Section 251 of the Criminal Code;

That this phrase has long exposed to destructive harm a child in anyone’s womb at anytime in Canada;

Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament consider restoring to the Criminal code the prudence it held prior to 1968, by removing the words ‘after becoming a human being’ from Section 223(2).

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0249	Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)	Dec 7, 2011	40
411-0357	Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)	Jan 30, 2012	39
TOTAL SIGNATURES			79

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

GRAND TOTAL: 3,816

Source: Office of the Clerk of Petitions

And another MP speaks out: Jeff Watson

Debate abortion, unborn's human rights says Tory MP Watson

According to the CBC:

Watson said human rights for the unborn and abortion don't necessarily go hand-in-hand but said "there could be links between the two."

"I’d love to hear the debate on this. What are the various permutations and implications if human rights are extended to the unborn?" Watson said. "Parliament is exactly the place to have that discussion. If it doesn’t happen in Parliament, where do we have these discussions?"

"Obviously, the government has been extremely clear it is not going to reopen any debate. But the rules of Parliament are such that individual members of Parliament, if they want to discuss these issues, can bring them forward for discussion.

"And I think it's clear how the government will vote on those issues, too."

Watson admitted "it's no secret" he is a pro life member of Parliament and believes the "old debate" about abortion should be re-examined.

"I think there’s more that can be done with respect to that issue," Watson said.

He said the government could provide more social and financial support to women who experience unplanned pregnancies. Citing a college student as a hypothetical example, he said a young woman today would not have to choose between education and being an unexpected mother.

"With the right supports you could have both," Watson said. "There’s more to this discussion than the old debate."

Good on Jeff Watson. The debate continues. With or without Stephen Harper. 

Could there be a better Christmas present than this--pro-life MPs speaking out in defence of our pre-born Canadians?

Merry Christmas to all.

Educating Francoise

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?