Canadian Politics Thread

[Ryan Strome]

10 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

400 million isn't a billion for one thing and secondly without knowing anything about your guy in the story: who gave him the 400 million, how did they get that much cash? lol 

there are 38 million of us Canadians: a Canadian made billionaire would need to have conned every single living Canuck out of a heck of a lot of cash each.

But I get your point, yes there are generally acceptions to the broadly stated thing I said. Sure, I will give you that.

You remind me of my dad a lot. For the record, he's a staunch NDPer. Too much hate and not enough love.

[Ryan Strome]

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Oh I know, no sleep lost 

 

Its one of those things where the CPC makes it easy to hammer them over the head with a topic. I don't agree on the no proof part, I think the strategy is very clear on what they are attempting to do. 

 

If the CPC MPs weren't putting the wedge issues out there, the Libs/NDP, and I'd ague old PC supporters like me, there's be nothing to point out. 

 

If you can show me where there's a need for this new bill over what a judge can do now, maybe we could discuss that. 

 

 

you are correct here for sure. Trump-obsession is real. Same with the Elon stuff, its a total waste of time to stay focused on either of them, imo.

 

 

we're taking about the CPC because of the current polling AND how bad JT is doing in some areas. Its pretty natural to discuss the alternative. 

 

So a couple things it is correct to discuss the alternative but I don't think it's accurate to blame the previous government for all the government's failures that's being in power for 8 years. As for your take on the easy pickings on abortion, I disagree. You've made your mind up without there actually being anything said or done to back it up. You are suggesting these things are being done because of a bigger broader picture that nobody knows but will rear its ugly face. I mean that would be like somebody saying Trudeau is doing the things he's doing because he wants a communist Canada similar to one like China or he wants a Canada that's run under Sharia law. I mean if I told you those two things you would probably laugh right? Because there's no proof of that but he has done things that would make you scratch your head and go if I thought hard enough and smoked enough Blunts I could probably say these are the starting points for those end results.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[LaBamba]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

You'd likely be wrong there

A billionaire, gets a large % of their taxable income taken off thru charitable donations. The net worth vs lifetime donations of most billionaires will shock you. Are charities/ charitable foundations a tax loop? Absolutely, that’s not the billionaires problem. Your government makes those rules. Rounding up your total for after school sports at Marks Work Wear house is nothing in comparison. 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I guess it comes down to how much time you want to give Elon, e.g. If its just having some fun and its not taking away from demanding more from our politicians then thats healthy. 

 

I do think some people do focus too much on these guys, tho and not enough on holding everyone to account. All of our politicians are letting us down right now. 

 

 

 

nice. 

 

 

-Maybe focus on all the wealth hoarders instead of just a couple...

 

- gotta thank my great parents. We were poor-ass immigrants but our struggle was only financial as we came from England. We were accepted in Canada with open arms, not so much for my wifes fam when her parents came here. My dad got me into real estate early in my 20's. My wife and I poured everything we had into real estate. We lived in a 400sqft apt for over 5 years to save. I had two jobs...anyway, the whole rags to riches thing. No hand outs, nothing. I am very proud of myself and fam. As a man with no children it is time for me to start to give back and make plans on who/what I will leave my dollars to when I leave this mortal coil.

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

 

-Maybe focus on all the wealth hoarders instead of just a couple...

 

- gotta thank my great parents. We were poor-ass immigrants but our struggle was only financial as we came from England. We were accepted in Canada with open arms, not so much for my wifes fam when her parents came here. My dad got me into real estate early in my 20's. My wife and I poured everything we had into real estate. We lived in a 400sqft apt for over 5 years to save. I had two jobs...anyway, the whole rags to riches thing. No hand outs, nothing. I am very proud of myself and fam. As a man with no children it is time for me to start to give back and make plans on who/what I will leave my dollars to when I leave this mortal coil.

can understand this sort of stuff. Try being First Nations and while you are a teenager getting your first job, it's acceptable for your co-workers to make derogatory racist comments because they don't think you are actually dark enough to be First Nations.

[Optimist Prime]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I didn't change the channel. I just asked you something. I responded to what you said. To my knowledge you haven't responded back to it.

Several, MANY times it has been pointed out that you tend to want to dictate what other people say or how they say it. This is how I know you are genuinely a right wing leaning person. The thing of it is I don't have to, unless I want to, and have time to, reply to anything you say and if i do, i REALLY don't have to apply your rules to how and what I reply with. 

 

This is my base fear in electing a right wing government. Incredibly motivated to limit how and why and to whom I may speak my mind.

 

edit: and also I tend to just ignore some nonesense, while yes, i also respond to some nonesense that I worry other readers may not realize is nonesense. 

[Bob Long]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

So a couple things it is correct to discuss the alternative but I don't think it's accurate to blame the previous government for all the government's failures that's being in power for 8 years.

 

but its so much fun to blame Harper, I mean it was so easy  old habits I suppose. 

 

But yes, we do need to hold the current folks to account, in an objective way. And then compare that to whats being offered as an alternative. 

 

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

As for your take on the easy pickings on abortion, I disagree. You've made your mind up without their actually being anything said or done to back it up. You are suggesting these things are being done because of a bigger broader picture that nobody knows but will rear its ugly face. I mean that would be like somebody saying Trudeau is doing the things he's doing because he wants a communist Canada similar to one like China or he wants a Canada that's run under Sharia law. I mean if I told you those two things you would probably laugh right? Because there's no proof of that but he has done things that would make you scratch your head and go if I thought hard enough and smoked enough Blunts I could probably say these are the starting points for those end results.

 

well, it doesn't help when Cathay Wagantall is part of the CPC pro-life coalition and and previously attempted the sex-selective abortion bill wedge. You can't do the "who me?" conservative routine on this one. We know who Cathay Wagantall is, and what she's put forward as attempted laws. 

 

The strategy is obvious. 

 

[Bob Long]

11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

-Maybe focus on all the wealth hoarders instead of just a couple...

 

yep. And the wealth wasters too. We do waste a lot of money on stupid stuff in Canada, mostly in needless layers of government. As if having more and more layers of administration will make you healthier, e.g. 

 

11 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

- gotta thank my great parents. We were poor-ass immigrants but our struggle was only financial as we came from England. We were accepted in Canada with open arms, not so much for my wifes fam when her parents came here. My dad got me into real estate early in my 20's. My wife and I poured everything we had into real estate. We lived in a 400sqft apt for over 5 years to save. I had two jobs...anyway, the whole rags to riches thing. No hand outs, nothing. I am very proud of myself and fam. As a man with no children it is time for me to start to give back and make plans on who/what I will leave my dollars to when I leave this mortal coil.

 

immigration, its why Canada is the best place on the planet, imo. 

[Optimist Prime]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

can understand this sort of stuff. Try being First Nations and while you are a teenager getting your first job, it's acceptable for your co-workers to make derogatory racist comments because they don't think you are actually dark enough to be First Nations.

I have no First Nations blood in me, but I do have some Sami heritage,(indigenous peoples of northern Finland, Sweden, Norway and Karelian Russia), ultimately I look and appear to be of European decent. That being said, I have given written warnings and fired people for what you are talking about. it is far too common and far too ingrained in society to think that you can make racists statements if you think that race isnt around to hear them. The mindset is disgusting. An old childhood friend and I reconnected on social media and one of the first things he said about Abbotsford, where we were friends in grade school was "it is a total brown town now". he knows that I found that an unacceptable statement from him and I know now that he doesnt' think he is racist and that phrasing was a carry through from his environment in the interrior, where they have elected a Conservative every election of our adult lifetime. Coincidence maybe, maybe.

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Several, MANY times it has been pointed out that you tend to want to dictate what other people say or how they say it. This is how I know you are genuinely a right wing leaning person. The thing of it is I don't have to, unless I want to, and have time to, reply to anything you say and if i do, i REALLY don't have to apply your rules to how and what I reply with. 

 

This is my base fear in electing a right wing government. Incredibly motivated to limit how and why and to whom I may speak my mind.

 

edit: and also I tend to just ignore some nonesense, while yes, i also respond to some nonesense that I worry other readers may not realize is nonesense. 

I don't think I told you you had to do anything. I asked you a question. You said I switched the channel. I said no I didn't. I asked you a question. You don't need to answer it. That's fine. I actually think a lot of what you said is just wrong and if you could point to any proof of me acting in this manner other than having a few that up vote each other with no proof as long as it's an attack on conservatives as your source please. Or we can just ignore each other, although I don't think I can actually by the rules ignore you.

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

can understand this sort of stuff. Try being First Nations and while you are a teenager getting your first job, it's acceptable for your co-workers to make derogatory racist comments because they don't think you are actually dark enough to be First Nations.

My wife is Iranian/ German.

Although she is pale her sister and brother are not. They have awful tales of dealing with racism here in Canada while my 'white' wife would fume when she heard similar stuff from her classmates about darker skin people. 

 

I have been in many conversations and had people bitch about immigrants. I then say " I'm an immigrant,  from England' ( i lost my accent when i was young) every time the response is 'but, no, you're not that kind of immigrant'

 

Sad stuff. I am sorry you had to deal with what you did.

[Optimist Prime]

I am not gonna scroll back over 106 pages but I can remember twice now in the last 20 or so where you quite literally sound mad that I am not saying what you want me to say in some regard and twice I have mentioned it. At least two other posters have mentioned that you try to define the terms of the discussion so as to exclude what they are saying or make them include something they are not saying. It is simply a trait of folks who lean right/authoritarian. You don't have to accept it, but there it is. 

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

but its so much fun to blame Harper, I mean it was so easy  old habits I suppose. 

 

But yes, we do need to hold the current folks to account, in an objective way. And then compare that to whats being offered as an alternative. 

 

 

well, it doesn't help when Cathay Wagantall is part of the CPC pro-life coalition and and previously attempted the sex-selective abortion bill wedge. You can't do the "who me?" conservative routine on this one. We know who Cathay Wagantall is, and what she's put forward as attempted laws. 

 

The strategy is obvious. 

 

So I'm willing to give you this one person and she's a terrible human being for her never-ending attempts at this, if in fact this is true. I don't even know her to be perfectly honest. I never even heard her name until you guys brought it up. But I don't think her last bill had anything to do with abortion, but I would be okay with throwing her out of the party.

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I have no First Nations blood in me, but I do have some Sami heritage,(indigenous peoples of northern Finland, Sweden, Norway and Karelian Russia), ultimately I look and appear to be of European decent. That being said, I have given written warnings and fired people for what you are talking about. it is far too common and far too ingrained in society to think that you can make racists statements if you think that race isnt around to hear them. The mindset is disgusting. An old childhood friend and I reconnected on social media and one of the first things he said about Abbotsford, where we were friends in grade school was "it is a total brown town now". he knows that I found that an unacceptable statement from him and I know now that he doesnt' think he is racist and that phrasing was a carry through from his environment in the interrior, where they have elected a Conservative every election of our adult lifetime. Coincidence maybe, maybe.

Every single party has racist people in it. You need to do better when calling out racism and not point to political parties. Just call it out for what it is. Racism. Didn't you say you served in the armed forces? Feel free not to share, but I'm curious to know which years? Also, as far as firing people and giving written warnings again, I don't know which year's these were in but I can tell you 25 years ago managers laughed and said let's get him to buy us some smokes..

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Also, as far as firing people and giving written warnings again, I don't know which year's these were in but I can tell you 25 years ago managers laughed and said let's get him to buy us some smokes..

Yeah, you missed it but I am agreeing with you, that sucks and it is in no way proper. 

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

My wife is Iranian/ German.

Although she is pale her sister and brother are not. They have awful tales of dealing with racism here in Canada while my 'white' wife would fume when she heard similar stuff from her classmates about darker skin people. 

 

I have been in many conversations and had people bitch about immigrants. I then say " I'm an immigrant,  from England' ( i lost my accent when i was young) every time the response is 'but, no, you're not that kind of immigrant'

 

Sad stuff. I am sorry you had to deal with what you did.

In my opinion, it is very acceptable to have a discussion about immigration and what immigration looks like in this country. What isn't acceptable is to say we will take immigrants from Western Europe but we won't take any from South America, India, Pakistan, etc. That just kind of shows blatant racism.

[4petesake]

7 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

but its so much fun to blame Harper, I mean it was so easy  old habits I suppose. 

 

But yes, we do need to hold the current folks to account, in an objective way. And then compare that to whats being offered as an alternative. 

 

 

well, it doesn't help when Cathay Wagantall is part of the CPC pro-life coalition and and previously attempted the sex-selective abortion bill wedge. You can't do the "who me?" conservative routine on this one. We know who Cathay Wagantall is, and what she's put forward as attempted laws. 

 

The strategy is obvious. 

 

 

A bit of a long read so I know few will bother but a pretty accurate summation for anyone whose interest is genuine.

*Apologies for the wall of text as copy and paste has deleted paragraph separation for some reason.

(And no I don’t believe this is Conservative policy but is absolutely the policy of a segment of the party.)

 

 

Andréanne Larouche Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, rising this evening to speak to Bill C‑311 is utterly exasperating. The Criminal Code amendment in the bill would force the courts to consider the fact that an assault victim is a pregnant woman an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. 

I realize this may seem like a sensitive issue, but, as usual, the Conservatives want to reopen the abortion debate. This bill is the latest in a long line of attempts to grant the fetus legal status in order to undermine women's right to control their own bodies. 

I will start by explaining the pernicious effects of this bill. Then I will go over the Conservatives' history of back-door attempts. Lastly, I will remind the House about this difficult struggle for women.

First, without explicitly naming the fetus, this bill seeks to create an aggravating circumstance when the offence of assault is committed against a pregnant woman. If passed, the Conservative proposal could strengthen the premise that the legislator's intent is to grant the fetus implicit legal status. The Bloc Québécois opposes any attempt at such legislation, which would set women's rights back. 

It is important to point out that the Criminal Code already enables judges imposing a sentence to consider as an aggravating factor an offence that has a significant impact on the victim, considering their personal circumstances, including their health. The victim's personal circumstances can include pregnancy, and the court can consider that as an aggravating factor under the circumstances. 

Femicides against pregnant women have been documented by Canadian police forces since 2005. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005, 12 pregnant women were killed by their intimate partner, and eight pregnant women were killed by someone other than their intimate partner. Let us remember that. Not one more.

In a 2021 ruling, the Court of Quebec examined this issue when sentencing a man who pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-wife. The judge was unequivocal about the consequences of committing such a crime against a pregnant woman. Her condition makes her more vulnerable to assault and less able to defend herself. The Quebec and Canadian courts are therefore inclined to consider a victim's personal circumstances, namely, a pregnancy, when handing down a sentence.

Our society has a duty to punish violence against women, especially violence against pregnant women, but the mechanisms to do so exist already. While it may have been tabled in good faith, the amendment in the Conservative bill brings nothing new to the table. However, we have strong reason to believe that it may be part of an anti-abortion strategy.

Second, it is important to point out that the Conservative member is continuing her ideological war against women's reproductive health.

During the previous Parliament, she sponsored a bill to criminalize abortions performed on the basis of an unborn child's sex. Despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims about being pro-choice, his caucus is clearly divided on the issue and still includes anti-choice members.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes Bill C‑311 given the bill's ulterior motive of securing legal status for fetuses. Bill C‑311 is an anti-abortion bill. The Bloc will make no compromise when it comes to defending women's right to control their own bodies, their right to choose, and supporting free, accessible and safe abortion services.

The Conservatives are trying to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. This bill is nothing less than an attempt to amend Canadian law in favour of their outdated anti‑abortion position, which Quebeckers have rejected. If passed, this legislative amendment could set a dangerous precedent if a Canadian court were to rule on the issue of the right to abortion. 

Our elected members have a responsibility to carry out their duties honestly and to state their real intentions when they engage in dialogue on behalf of the constituents they represent. This is necessary for a healthy democracy. Obfuscating the debate for purely ideological purposes undermines the effective functioning of our democracy. These tactics need to be recognized, called out and stopped.

The Bloc Québécois demands that the Leader of the Conservative Party publicly recognize that Bill C-311 is just a partisan strategy to attack abortion, that he call on his members to oppose it and that he rein in the member for Yorkton—Melville. If he does not, if he chooses instead to vote for Bill C‑311, as he announced today, it says a lot about the influence of religious lobby groups on the Conservatives. In Quebec, we believe in secularism, which takes religion out of governance.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has previously presented anti-abortion bills. In 2016, she introduced Bill C-225, the protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, also known as Cassie and Molly's law, which would have handed out a life sentence to anyone who “directly or indirectly causes the death of [a] preborn child”.

Is it not curious that the member for Yorkton—Melville never openly attacks the right to abortion, but that her efforts are somehow always directed at making this medical act a criminal offence with harsh sentences?

For all these reasons, we recommend that members vote against Bill C‑311.

It is also worth noting that the issue of selective abortion is not new in federal politics. A Conservative member moved a motion to condemn it in 2012, reopening the abortion debate in the process. That motion came after Conservative Stephen Woodworth's motion on the rights of the fetus that called for a parliamentary committee to study at what point a fetus should be considered a human being for the purposes of enforcing Criminal Code provisions.

These tactics, aiming to surreptitiously criminalize abortion, were carried out despite former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign promise to not reopen the abortion debate.

Third, I would remind members that women's right to access abortion in Canada is intimately connected to Dr. Henry Morgentaler's fight to legalize this medical treatment. Prior to 1969, performing abortions was illegal in Canada. Women died trying to perform their own abortions with knitting needles and coat hangers. Do we really want to go back to that?

In 1969, Parliament made several important amendments to the Criminal Code. The section on abortion, section 273 at the time, specified when an abortion could legally be performed. The section set out criminal sanctions for doctors who did not respect the strict rules.

That same year, Dr. Henry Morgentaler opened his first clinic in Montreal, where he performed abortions after doctors and groups had debated whether or not to approve it. A year later, he was charged with performing illegal abortions. After his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1975, he served a 10-month sentence in prison.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. In 1983, Dr. Morgentaler, along with two other doctors, was charged with performing illegal abortions at Dr. Morgentaler's clinic in Toronto. Although complex, the case rests primarily on one specific point of law, namely, whether the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code infringed in an unjustified way a woman's right “to life, liberty and security of the person” as guaranteed by section 7 of the charter.

Although the ruling is also complex, the court concluded that the abortion section of the Criminal Code infringed a woman's right to security of the person, that the process by which the woman was deprived of that right was not in accord with fundamental justice, and that the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable.

In conclusion, over 30 years after abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the Conservatives are pursuing their anti-choice militancy by tabling a bill like this one in Parliament. Their attacks on women's rights are a political manoeuvre to pander to the religious right.

The Bloc Québécois must firmly resist the Conservatives' attacks on the integrity of women and their hard-won right to control their own bodies.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

Yeah, you missed it but I am agreeing with you, that sucks and it is in no way proper. 

No no I didn't miss what you're saying at all. I was just pointing out that 25 years ago it was totally acceptable. So I guess I was asking like what years it was that you were firing people? These days I'm in a position where I'm the top dog on a lease and to be perfectly honest, most people don't talk to me anyways. They try to stay out of my shack. But I don't tolerate any belittling of others and the old mentality that i grew up working on a drilling rig with.

[LaBamba]

11 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Several, MANY times it has been pointed out that you tend to want to dictate what other people say or how they say it. This is how I know you are genuinely a right wing leaning person. The thing of it is I don't have to, unless I want to, and have time to, reply to anything you say and if i do, i REALLY don't have to apply your rules to how and what I reply with. 

 

This is my base fear in electing a right wing government. Incredibly motivated to limit how and why and to whom I may speak my mind.

 

edit: and also I tend to just ignore some nonesense, while yes, i also respond to some nonesense that I worry other readers may not realize is nonesense. 

A majority Conservative government will never have the power to change any major social policies/programs. 

The only notable thing you will see change is the federal budget. 

 

The base structure of Gay marriage, abortions, healthcare, welfare, immigration laws, all that stuff is safe. 
 

Everyone needs to focus on the real issues. Stop mixing things that are irrelevant into the discussion to support your narrative. 
 

This would be a fiscal election. That’s all that will change. 

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

No no I didn't miss what you're saying at all. I was just pointing out that 25 years ago it was totally acceptable. So I guess I was asking like what years it was that you were firing people? These days I'm in a position where I'm the top dog on a lease and to be perfectly honest, most people don't talk to me anyways. They try to stay out of my shack. But I don't tolerate any belittling of others and the old mentality that i grew up working on a drilling rig with.

My point is people today still think it is totally acceptable, it is a constant fight to try to ensure a society where every human being is treated with equality not just under the law, but at the local lunch counter, wedding cake supplier, bank and government office. I am pretty sure we can agree to actually agree there. 

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I am not gonna scroll back over 106 pages but I can remember twice now in the last 20 or so where you quite literally sound mad that I am not saying what you want me to say in some regard and twice I have mentioned it. At least two other posters have mentioned that you try to define the terms of the discussion so as to exclude what they are saying or make them include something they are not saying. It is simply a trait of folks who lean right/authoritarian. You don't have to accept it, but there it is. 

So a couple things it's me that's asking for proof of all the abortion stuff with conservatives and it's me that's getting no answers. Given that I'm the conservative on a very left leaning forum, it's me that has more questions thrown at them. So it's me that's actually responding to these more often. Also, I find it odd you put right/ authoritarian throughout our history. Most authoritarian governments were left just saying.

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, LaBamba said:

 Stop mixing things that are irrelevant into the discussion to support your narrative

I am gonna guess you lean a bit right of center. "stop saying things that make the right wing look like they are right wing"

[Optimist Prime]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So a couple things it's me that's asking for proof of all the abortion stuff with conservatives and it's me that's getting no answers. Given that I'm the conservative on a very left leaning forum, it's me that has more questions thrown at them. So it's me that's actually responding to these more often. Also, I find it odd you put right/ authoritarian throughout our history. Most authoritarian governments were left just saying.

You have several answers all along this thread, including 4petesake only about 5 posts up if you care to look and admit it. This is in the weeds now, if you want to have an argument where you control and define the words and language and topics debated, I am sure there is an AI for that.

[Ryan Strome]

Serious question for those who keep wanting to think it's going to happen. Do you guys truly believe a majority conservative government could overturn a woman's right to choose and gay marriage in this country? Maybe that's where we should start the debate and then we can do a little correcting of each other here.

[LaBamba]

5 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

A bit of a long read so I know few will bother but a pretty accurate summation for anyone whose interest is genuine.

*Apologies for the wall of text as copy and paste has deleted paragraph separation for some reason.

(And no I don’t believe this is Conservative policy but is absolutely the policy of a segment of the party.)

 

 

Andréanne Larouche Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, rising this evening to speak to Bill C‑311 is utterly exasperating. The Criminal Code amendment in the bill would force the courts to consider the fact that an assault victim is a pregnant woman an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. 

I realize this may seem like a sensitive issue, but, as usual, the Conservatives want to reopen the abortion debate. This bill is the latest in a long line of attempts to grant the fetus legal status in order to undermine women's right to control their own bodies. 

I will start by explaining the pernicious effects of this bill. Then I will go over the Conservatives' history of back-door attempts. Lastly, I will remind the House about this difficult struggle for women.

First, without explicitly naming the fetus, this bill seeks to create an aggravating circumstance when the offence of assault is committed against a pregnant woman. If passed, the Conservative proposal could strengthen the premise that the legislator's intent is to grant the fetus implicit legal status. The Bloc Québécois opposes any attempt at such legislation, which would set women's rights back. 

It is important to point out that the Criminal Code already enables judges imposing a sentence to consider as an aggravating factor an offence that has a significant impact on the victim, considering their personal circumstances, including their health. The victim's personal circumstances can include pregnancy, and the court can consider that as an aggravating factor under the circumstances. 

Femicides against pregnant women have been documented by Canadian police forces since 2005. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005, 12 pregnant women were killed by their intimate partner, and eight pregnant women were killed by someone other than their intimate partner. Let us remember that. Not one more.

In a 2021 ruling, the Court of Quebec examined this issue when sentencing a man who pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-wife. The judge was unequivocal about the consequences of committing such a crime against a pregnant woman. Her condition makes her more vulnerable to assault and less able to defend herself. The Quebec and Canadian courts are therefore inclined to consider a victim's personal circumstances, namely, a pregnancy, when handing down a sentence.

Our society has a duty to punish violence against women, especially violence against pregnant women, but the mechanisms to do so exist already. While it may have been tabled in good faith, the amendment in the Conservative bill brings nothing new to the table. However, we have strong reason to believe that it may be part of an anti-abortion strategy.

Second, it is important to point out that the Conservative member is continuing her ideological war against women's reproductive health.

During the previous Parliament, she sponsored a bill to criminalize abortions performed on the basis of an unborn child's sex. Despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims about being pro-choice, his caucus is clearly divided on the issue and still includes anti-choice members.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes Bill C‑311 given the bill's ulterior motive of securing legal status for fetuses. Bill C‑311 is an anti-abortion bill. The Bloc will make no compromise when it comes to defending women's right to control their own bodies, their right to choose, and supporting free, accessible and safe abortion services.

The Conservatives are trying to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. This bill is nothing less than an attempt to amend Canadian law in favour of their outdated anti‑abortion position, which Quebeckers have rejected. If passed, this legislative amendment could set a dangerous precedent if a Canadian court were to rule on the issue of the right to abortion. 

Our elected members have a responsibility to carry out their duties honestly and to state their real intentions when they engage in dialogue on behalf of the constituents they represent. This is necessary for a healthy democracy. Obfuscating the debate for purely ideological purposes undermines the effective functioning of our democracy. These tactics need to be recognized, called out and stopped.

The Bloc Québécois demands that the Leader of the Conservative Party publicly recognize that Bill C-311 is just a partisan strategy to attack abortion, that he call on his members to oppose it and that he rein in the member for Yorkton—Melville. If he does not, if he chooses instead to vote for Bill C‑311, as he announced today, it says a lot about the influence of religious lobby groups on the Conservatives. In Quebec, we believe in secularism, which takes religion out of governance.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has previously presented anti-abortion bills. In 2016, she introduced Bill C-225, the protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, also known as Cassie and Molly's law, which would have handed out a life sentence to anyone who “directly or indirectly causes the death of [a] preborn child”.

Is it not curious that the member for Yorkton—Melville never openly attacks the right to abortion, but that her efforts are somehow always directed at making this medical act a criminal offence with harsh sentences?

For all these reasons, we recommend that members vote against Bill C‑311.

It is also worth noting that the issue of selective abortion is not new in federal politics. A Conservative member moved a motion to condemn it in 2012, reopening the abortion debate in the process. That motion came after Conservative Stephen Woodworth's motion on the rights of the fetus that called for a parliamentary committee to study at what point a fetus should be considered a human being for the purposes of enforcing Criminal Code provisions.

These tactics, aiming to surreptitiously criminalize abortion, were carried out despite former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign promise to not reopen the abortion debate.

Third, I would remind members that women's right to access abortion in Canada is intimately connected to Dr. Henry Morgentaler's fight to legalize this medical treatment. Prior to 1969, performing abortions was illegal in Canada. Women died trying to perform their own abortions with knitting needles and coat hangers. Do we really want to go back to that?

In 1969, Parliament made several important amendments to the Criminal Code. The section on abortion, section 273 at the time, specified when an abortion could legally be performed. The section set out criminal sanctions for doctors who did not respect the strict rules.

That same year, Dr. Henry Morgentaler opened his first clinic in Montreal, where he performed abortions after doctors and groups had debated whether or not to approve it. A year later, he was charged with performing illegal abortions. After his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1975, he served a 10-month sentence in prison.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. In 1983, Dr. Morgentaler, along with two other doctors, was charged with performing illegal abortions at Dr. Morgentaler's clinic in Toronto. Although complex, the case rests primarily on one specific point of law, namely, whether the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code infringed in an unjustified way a woman's right “to life, liberty and security of the person” as guaranteed by section 7 of the charter.

Although the ruling is also complex, the court concluded that the abortion section of the Criminal Code infringed a woman's right to security of the person, that the process by which the woman was deprived of that right was not in accord with fundamental justice, and that the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable.

In conclusion, over 30 years after abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the Conservatives are pursuing their anti-choice militancy by tabling a bill like this one in Parliament. Their attacks on women's rights are a political manoeuvre to pander to the religious right.

The Bloc Québécois must firmly resist the Conservatives' attacks on the integrity of women and their hard-won right to control their own bodies.

Cool story bro, explain the pathway to legislation please. Tell me how this is going to be passed through parliament under a majority CPC government? 
 

you need to worry about the housing collapse and inflation. 
 

When you get hit by a car your first concern shouldn’t be if your pack of smokes got squashed. 

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

You have several answers all along this thread, including 4petesake only about 5 posts up if you care to look and admit it. This is in the weeds now, if you want to have an argument where you control and define the words and language and topics debated, I am sure there is an AI for that.

Lol no proof has been provided. A biased website has been provided which doesn't offer any proof or any evidence. You are right, it is in the weeds because it was a big swing and a miss.