Proposed law would stiffen penalties for violence against pregnant women
Abortion debate won't be re-opened, Conservatives say
Last Updated: Monday, August 25, 2008 | 7:04 PM ET
CBC News
Judges would consider a victim's pregnancy when determining a sentence for a violent offender under a bill proposed by the federal justice minister.
But Rob Nicholson said the new legislation, which has not yet been tabled in the House of Commons, will not challenge the legality of abortion or confer rights on fetuses.
"Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," he said Monday in Ottawa as he announced plans for the bill.
"The government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women, but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."
The bill calls for pregnancy to be added as one of the aggravating or mitigating factors a judge can consider when sentencing, as laid out in the Criminal Code.
Would supersede backbencher's bill
The legislation replaces Bill C-484, known as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, which was introduced by Conservative backbencher Ken Epp last year.
The bill, which calls for the slaying of a fetus to be considered a separate offence from the slaying of a pregnant woman, survived one vote in the House of Commons in March, but would need to pass at least one more Commons vote and be approved by the Senate before becoming law.
Pro-choice advocates denounced the planned bill and the Canadian Medical Association voted Thursday to oppose it.
Even some prominent Conservatives hesitated to support the bill. When it passed 147-132 in the free vote in March, Prime Minister Stephen Harper supported it, but Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor and Josée Verner did not.
"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.
He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.
"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.
Nicholson would not give exact details about how the two bills are different.
Election call could quash bill
There is a chance the bill will never be tabled in the Commons. If a federal election is called in the next few weeks, as many speculate will happen, the fall session of Parliament will not get a chance to start, and Nicholson will not be able to present his bill.
But Nicholson denied he was simply bringing the bill forward, knowing it may never be tabled, because he wants to fire up his supporters and boost his party's standing in anticipation of an election call.
He argued that the minority Conservative government has been facing a possible election since it took office, and the strategy has always been to push ahead with legislative changes despite the threat the government could fall.
"I've got to continue to move forward," he said. "We can't be governed by threats."
Abortion legalized in 1988
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a Canadian law severely restricting access to medical abortions was unconstitutional because it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Between 1969 and 1988, Canadian law stated that abortions could be performed in a hospital if a committee of doctors decided that continuing the pregnancy could endanger the mother's life or health. Access to abortions varied across the country.
Canada is now one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. An abortion is now treated like any other medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations.
Critics have expressed concerns the Conservative government would reopen the debate if it introduced new laws that take into account fetuses victimized by violent crime.
