Explaining Motion 312 - Macleans.ca

Explaining Motion 312


Conservative MP Bryan Hayes explains his support for Motion 312.

“In my opinion, the formation of a committee does not pre-conclude what the results or recommendations that come forward from that committee might be. So I think it’s reasonable that a committee have some respectful dialogue around this piece of legislation. Obviously the committee was going to be tasked with some responsibilities within their realm as a committee, so when I looked at those responsibilities I thought it reasonable that those questions they would be tasked to answer deserved dialogue.”

… Hayes concluded: “Our government has gone on record as stating we will not revisit the abortion debate, but this piece of legislation states that a child is not a human being before the moment of birth. The definition of when someone is officially declared a human being is 400-year-old legislation, and I think conversation needed to occur as to whether or not that piece of legislation makes sense today.”

NDP MP Brian Masse explains his vote against.

“Generally I believe it’s a woman’s right to choose,” Masse said. “It’s as simple as that. It’s a rights issue. This motion made that rather complicated and eroded that.”

Conservative MP Randy Kamp explains his views.

“To say that it’s a completely closed issue, to have no legislation of any kind on when an unborn child deserves protection – that I think is what all that motion is about,” Kamp said.

Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber blogs.

Motion 312, which would have called for an examination of when human life begins, was defeated in the House of Commons Wednesday night by a vote of 203-91.  Predictably, the “Nay” forces were claiming victory and many in the Pro-Life crowd required consoling.  Neither reaction was warranted; certainly any celebrations were premature. As I told Alberta Talk Show Host, Rob Breakenridge, the sad reality is that the vote on Motion 312 resolved nothing.  This matter would keep coming back until Parliament has the courage to deal with it in a fulsome and respectful manner.  Refusing to study a matter does not resolution of an issue make.


Explaining Motion 312

  1. I don’t CARE why they did it. Just go away!

    • I can’t believe that 203 MP’s just said that a full term baby(hours from being born) is not a human and (because we have no abortion law in Canada) can still be aborted.


      • That’s because it’s not true.

        • Unfortunately, it is. No doctor would perform one so late; but yes technically Canada, along with North korea and China are the only countries in the world with no law at all restricting abortion. Even socialist countries like Sweden and other European countries have some restriction after so many months.

          • No, it’s not true….have none of you ever taken critical thinking??

          • Are you suggesting that it is against the law in Canada to abort after a certain term in the pregnancy?

          • Are you suggesting you’ve never heard of premature babies?

          • You obviously do not want to answer the question and I’m not sure what premies have to do with the discussion

          • There is no question to answer.

            And no baby is aborted within minutes or hours or days of birth

            There are induced babies, premature babies and early babies….all quite viable as humans.

            Abortion only involves a foetus in the very early stages.

            ‘Late term abortion’ is a political term….meaningless medically….and would only involve a stillborn child or one unable to live….having a brain outside the body or other medical problems. Rarely happens as they are caught early on.

          • I can concede that, yes, no one would or should perform an abortion late into the pregnancy. All I am suggesting is that because Canada is too paranoid to have the discussion, there is no legal grounds to prevent someone from having an abortion later into the pregnancy if they wanted too. That is why every other country in the world except those mentioned has some restriction

          • No one CAN perform an abortion late in the pregnancy…it would only be a medical emergency at that stage.

            Canada had the discussion…..years ago. Which is why nobody wants to go through it again. Polls show minds haven’t changed, and that we don’t need any laws on a medical procedure.

            I don’t care what other countries do…and neither does anyone else.

          • Anyone can perform an abortion late in a pregnancy. Radio-Canada did a report on the subject a few years back. Abortions in Canada are practised until the 23rd week of pregnancy, after which the woman is sent to the US to perform an abortion up to 36 weeks (at taxpayer cost), because Canada lacks the expertise to perform such late abortions (probably due to the lack of demand at that stage).
            It’s rare, but it’s feasible. Anyone CAN perform an abortion late in the pregnancy.
            Here’s the link: (although I’m not sure if outside links get blocked on the Macleans discussion boards?)

          • Can and do….two different things.

          • No, Canada has not “had” the discussion; depending on how you view it, we have either not discussed it at all, or we are endlessly discussing it at levels where it does no good.

            The courts threw out the existing law and no political party has been willing to try to address the void since. So there is endless debate going nowhere.

            In all likelihood, even if laws were put in place, the debate isn’t going to end, if the American experience is any indication. If you don’t want to participate – then don’t!

          • Yeah we did….many years ago. I lived through it. It’s in the history books.

            And people still feel the same way.

            And in any case we have RU 486

            It’s over, move on.

          • NO! YOU’RE WRONG! If no doctor would perform the abortion, then there is no abortion, and therefore you ae arguing a moot point.

          • pat, if these don’t occur, then what would be so controversial about outlawing late-term abortions? Why do jimmies get rustled on the pro-abortion side when this would be a largely formal measure with few practical implications?

          • Well if there are no late term abortions as you suggest (and which, by the way, I accept as very likely true) then why are you against giving rights to late-term, in utero infants?

          • Never make laws you can’t enforce


            This has already been decided by charter rights

          • Utter nonsense… as usual.

          • Only to morons who can’t think….the Keith Brams of this world.

        • Still resorting to lies and denial to make your “point”, I see.

      • HANK, Who do you think is having abortions,do you think we need more
        kids from drug and booze mom, or rape victim,or many of the girls that
        just used by some guy.The kids just don’t cut it in school and end up living a dysfunctional life,doing harm to others and costing the taxpayers forever.
        Some moms try but it takes a nation to raise these kids.

        • The motion was not about abortion. It was about what point should we consider a preborn baby human. Right now the law states that it is not a human until it is born. Since premature babies can survive after 26 or so weeks, wouldn’t it make since to consider them human inside the womb, if we consider them human outside it.

          • Please. Even the CPC MPs were saying it’s about abortion, and the reason is pretty obvious unless you’re a complete moron, a malicious liar, or both.

            As soon as something is defined as human, all of the other aspects of human law start applying, including laws about homicide. And unfortunately, we don’t seem to be advanced enough yet to realize there’s a primacy of rights issue here where a person should never be denied the ability to choose how their body is used.

          • All kinds of worms. In their rush to criminalize abortions, they didn’t even think about the liability of doctors who might be less likely to perform risky operations if they could be charged with murder if something went wrong with the fetus.

  2. The conservative cacus later stated ‘we will continue to call Canadians stupid, to their face’, as every dog in the neighbourhood began to whine and cover its ears.

  3. Refusing to study a matter does not resolution of an issue make.

    In this case, I think, IT DOES.

    The bill in question didn’t contain the word abortion, didn’t call for any regulation, didn’t do ANYTHING but ask for a committee to talk about something. And it got defeated 203-91. If a Parliament headed by a majority government that is arguably the most conservative government in my lifetime trounces THIS bill so soundly, it’s clearly HOPELESS for the Pro-Life crowd.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, it seems to me that there may be no safer public policy in all of Canada than our absolute lack of any legislation even REMOTELY related to abortion. I’d wager that we’ll have “Hitler was Awesome Day” as a federal statutory holiday before a bill with the word abortion in it gets passed by the House of Commons.

    • Nevertheless, the abortion debate has been opened. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been called a baby-murderer by the howler monkeys who’ve been waiting for an excuse to engage on this.

      “… the sad reality is that the vote on Motion 312 resolved nothing.
      This matter would keep coming back until Parliament has the courage to
      deal with it in a fulsome and respectful manner.”

      Canadian pro-lifers are playing the long game. I think the American example should serve as a warning. Today, abortion decisions are between a woman and her doctor. Any engagement with pro-life forces can only threaten that. We can disagree about the severity of the threat, but why engage and entertain any threat at all?

      • This couldn’t be more true. furthermore any restriction at all on a woman’s right to control her own body will be used by the pro-life forces to push even farther (See! we can control women’s bodies this much and now fetuses are children! how can science allow abortions at all). since the risk of abortion in the final days of pregnancy is theoretical and the threat of further pushing by the anti-woman forces is real, there can be no quarter.

  4. I’m not too comfortable in letting a bunch of western fundamentalists dictate social police to the rest of the country.