Bill to Get Tough on Violence Against Pregnant Women Defeated on Second Reading

A Canadian flag flies by Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 13, 2020. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

A private member’s bill aiming to crack down on violence against pregnant women was defeated on second reading 205 to 113 in the House of Commons on June 14, with only Conservatives voting to support the proposed legislation.

Bill C-311, introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall in January, proposed changing the Criminal Code to state that “knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.”

“Women are at a greater risk of intimate partner violence when pregnant, but the consequences their attackers currently face do not reflect the crimes committed,” said Wagantall at the time.

“Sentences issued by our courts should match the crime. Conservatives are introducing this bill to ensure that criminals who attack or kill a pregnant woman can be sentenced appropriately by our courts.”

According to the Conservatives, there have been more than 80 cases in recent Canadian history where a pregnant woman has been knowingly killed by a man aware of her condition.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters on May 10 that it was “frustrating” and “disappointing” to see such a proposed bill, and alleged the Conservative Party was “reopening the debate on abortion and going after a woman’s right to choose.”

Trudeau said that in Canada, abortion is health care.

“The Criminal Code currently treats violence against pregnant women and non-pregnant women as the same, ignoring the life and health of the pre-born child. This bill would make it a greater offence to injure a pregnant woman,” according to the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA), a grassroots Christian political advocacy organization, in a recent statement.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada publicly asked MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it might promote fetal rights, even though there is no mention of fetal rights in the text of the bill.

Matthew Horwood contributed to this report.