A private member's bill from a Conservative backbench MP is stirring up debate over abortion in Canada, though the proposed legislation does not mention it even once.

Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall's bill would encourage judges to consider physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim as an aggravating factor during sentencing.

"It is focused on pregnant women being attacked by a third party who wants to cause injury or death to that individual," said Wagantall, a Saskatchewan MP.

Wagantall opposes abortion but she said the legislation, known as Bill C-311, has nothing to do with that and is entirely focused on violence against women.

But the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is urging MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it promotes fetal rights, even though there is no mention of fetal rights in the text of the bill itself.

Executive director Joyce Arthur said some groups who oppose abortion view the bill as a positive step because they feel it would legally recognize "pre-born children" in the case of violent crimes, which is not the case now.

"On the surface, it might not seem like an objectionable bill, but there's all kinds of associated reasons that we're very suspicious of it," said Arthur.

"I thought that was very revealing and very alarming in terms of, if this law was passed, how it could be misused, misappropriate by the anti-abortion movement, how they could build on it to try and establish further restrictions."

Private member's bills rarely become law and this one is similarly unlikely to get through the House of Commons, but it has revived abortion as a wedge issue among parliamentarians.

Conservative MP's bill on violence against #PregnantWomen revives #abortion debate. #CDNPoli #CPC

Wagantall spoke to reporters about her bill in the foyer of the House of Commons Tuesday morning ahead of when the bill was to come up for its first real debate. That ended up being delayed.

But while Wagantall spoke, Status of Women Minister Marci Ien was in a building across the street announcing the government would give $4.2 million from the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund to projects intended to improve access to abortion.

Ien and other Liberal ministers characterize Wagantall's bill as an effort to reopen the abortion debate in Canada.

"We are not a government that will trick people into places that would limit the access to women across our great country to get an abortion," Ien said when asked about the legislation.

Justice Minister David Lametti said on Twitter Tuesday the proposed legislation is an attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose and would make pregnant women less safe.

Campaign Life Coalition president Jeff Gunnarson said he absolutely hopes the proposed bill contributes to a legal argument for fetal rights and restrictions on abortion in the future, but he thinks it's unlikely.

While the bill would move to protect an unborn child in the womb, Gunnarson said, it does not protect it against abortion — only violent crime.

Still, he was surprised to learn that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre plans to support the bill, given the inferences that could be drawn from that move.

Poilievre's spokesman confirmed the leader does plan to vote in favour of it. Poilievre has in the past identified as in favour of abortion rights and said he would not introduce legislation to limit abortion rights in Canada.

"I still think that he would not vote for it just for the reason that it would look to the media and the pro-abortion people that he's sort of leaning toward a pro-life stance," Gunnarson said.

Gunnarson's group would not be so quick to jump to that conclusion, however.

"I believe him when he says a Poilievre government will not pass or create any legislation to protect the unborn," he said.

The bill is the latest iteration of similar proposed legislation put forward by Wagantall to protect unborn children from violence in 2016.

With the 2016 version, named Cassie and Molly's law, Wagantall sought to make it a separate offence under the Criminal Code to injure or kill a fetus while committing an offence against the mother.

Her latest bill is more squarely focused on aggravating factors during sentencing for offences against the mother, she said.

"The difference is this is very, very honed and very specific," she said

Similar reforms were also proposed in the 2008 "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," and other Conservative private member's bills in when former prime minister Stephen Harper was in government.

During the debate in 2016, Bill Blair, who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at the time, pointed out that abusing pregnant women was already considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

The Criminal Code also prohibits causing the death of a fetus in some circumstances, though it does not acknowledge an unborn fetus as a human being.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 9, 2023.

Keep reading

Though the CPC or UCP or the Ontario CP won't talk about it publicly, they all have a hidden agenda to erode women's rights and abortion is one they are trying to erode. Women voters need to understand that a vote for conservatives will only slowly erode the rights they have fought for so long to gain.

The private member bill is designed to systematically pick away at these rights in bits to create a smoke screen and hope you don't see their true colours until it is too late. Fortunately, it won't make it through the house.

On top of that, conservatives want to erode public healthcare, public education, and dismantle anything related to climate change. Their only interest is filling the pork barrels of their corrupt donors and ignore Canadians or constituents with their snake oil pitch.


Yup yup.

Snakes, weasels, it's sad to demonize self-respecting creatures on the planet by comparing them with these....lying, devious, treacherous, Reformacons.

Also yup

Ever since "God bless Canada" Harper, his seminal cohort of "social conservatives" have been floating private member bills regularly to keep their dream alive, i.e. the one where their almighty Christian god obtains HIS rightful place in human society at the highest levels of governance.
As "worshippers" of the mythical figure irrationally portrayed as his son, they also identify with him as the ultimate martyr and saviour. In that same heroic capacity, they have found their own cause here on earth with the fetus, obvious casualty of modern secular life. So the latest Supreme Court victory in the States with Roe v. Wade has definitely put wind in their sails, a reward for the ongoing martyrdom required to endure those who are simply not as "enlightened" as them. And very much a testimony to the patience of Christian Republicans who have been working to undermine American secularism for decades now. For them too, this ability to regain control of women was the lynchpin.
The fact that the righteous, deluded people in this cult seem to regard fetuses as "free-range" (apparently just waiting all this time for someone to take up their cause) truly serves to showcase, in bold relief, the essential misogyny at the "heart" of all religious doctrines. When the already-born are so casually subjugated to the "pre-born," one can only assume them to be expendable to the cause as lesser human beings, i.e. women, i.e. people described by a character in "On Chesil Beach" by Ian McEwen as creatures who "lead silly, distant lives."
Many have probably heard the apt comparison: "If men got pregnant you'd probably be able to get an abortion at Jiffy-Lube."

We should have the participants in the Butterfly Conference enshrined on our postage, and our currency.

Without that uprising, women would have been left entirely unprotected in the Constitution & in the Charter, and our choices regarding whether to have, and/or raise, a child would be so much dust in the wind.

"'It is focused on pregnant women being attacked by a third party who wants to cause injury or death to that individual,' said Wagantall, a Saskatchewan MP."
Third party? There are two parties involved, unless one considers a fetus to be a second party.
And as far as "believing" Poilievre goes ... well, there's probably no need to enlarge upon that.