Mark Warawa gives up on Motion 408

The Conservative MP throws in the towel


A statement released by Conservative MP Mark Warawa just before Question Period this afternoon.

“When I made my decision to introduce Motion-408, I was determined to help raise awareness that sex selection is happening in Canada. An overwhelming number of Canadians responded, indicating their support for Motion 408, and I want to thank them. Over that last couple of weeks, I seriously considered my options and how best to move this issue forward. I’ve decided to continue working on the sex selection, gendercide issue by speaking at university campuses, giving lectures and engaging in debates. Within Parliament, I will continue to work on this important issue with my colleagues across all party lines.

“Legislatively, I will introduce a new bill tomorrow to protect children from sexual predators, called the Safe at Home bill. This bill is a result of a sex offender in my riding of Langley who was permitted to serve House arrest right next door to his young victim. In another case, the sex offender served House arrest across the street from the victim. In both cases, the young victims lived in fear and were re-victimized every time they saw their attacker. One mom asked me, ‘Why should we have to move from our home when we are the victims?’ That’s a good question! That’s why I will introduce my new bill. I look forward to the House debating my new bill.”

So MPs have now successfully prevented a motion from one of their colleagues from receiving a vote on the floor of the House of Commons despite altogether flimsy rationale.


Mark Warawa gives up on Motion 408

  1. I had difficulty caring all that much on this one when both sides were so utterly disingenuous. The other side were wrong to say it was provincial only thing, but he was all coy about his abortion-wedgy issue stuff. Maybe if MW had come out more whole hog crazy about it – irony!

  2. Aw, jeez, and all along I thought Warawa was waging a noble battle for democratic principles in our parliamentary institutions. I’m so disillusioned.

    • Huh? Are you for real or are you just being sarcastic? Did you honestly think this was about something other than abortion?

      • I’m sure for Warawa it was largely about abortion. I think that a number of the MPs who backed him are genuinely concerned about the stifling of free speech – as am I.

        • Yes well I think the only time people really complain about someone crapping on their “free speech” is when they are trying to ram their opinion and agenda down peoples’ throat regardless of the cost to others.

          • And people only try to block it when it doesn’t fit with their agenda or viewpoint…. wait! Isn’t that why we protect it? To ensure those with differing viewpoints get to speak?
            I don’t have to agree with somebody’s viewpoint in order for me to defend their right to express it; if I did, I’d be looking to stuff a sock in your mouth about half the time. Face it, HI – when it comes to this issue you let your feelings override your usual sense of fair play.

          • In my opinion this was never about fair play. These guys had an agenda period.
            I do have strong feelings about the abortion debate. I think this guys should get a vote and they did. They just didn’t like the outcome so they kept on trying to change it.

          • He didn’t get a vote though.

            Heck, he didn’t even get to complain in the House about not getting a vote.

          • I might be mistaken but I do believe sex-selection abortion was brought up with the vote on late term abortions and deciding when a fetus becomes a human being. I believe that is the reason Mr. Dion and the rest of the commission denied the vote the second time, saying the matter had already been voted on. Mr. Warawa wanted sex-selection abortion to be treated as an isolated entity separate from late term abortion but unfortunately, his colleague had already argued sex-selection abortion and late term abortion in the earlier motion. That is apparently why he didn’t get a vote and why that decision to deny the vote was held up in appeal. He may not have gotten to complain IN the House but his complaints were certainly heard all through the house via the media. If Mr. Warawa and his group are really ingenuous about the suppression of freedom of speech, they should champion legislation for bigger, better and stronger protection for whistleblowers in the workplace. I am quite certain all of the backbenchers could get behind that.

          • actually the earlier motion was Motion 312 by MP Stephen Woodworth. His motion had nothing to do with late-term abortion. His Motion asked: That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. (this is a 400 year old law btw)
            I’m sure we all KNOW that a child is a human being long before he or she exits the womb. We do live in the 21st century with technology like clear, crisp ultrasounds. Follow the Gosnell case from the US and really take a look at the horror of abortion and then try to justlify it.

          • Rose, do you really believe that licensed physicians at accredited hospitals in Canada would do what Dr. Gosnell did and get away with it? Do you think that no nurses or other staff would turn him in?

            The reason I think that Mr. Warawa’s motion had everything to do with late-term abortion is because he wants to declare a time during the pregnancy (at a certain week gestation when a fetus becomes a human being).

            He would only do that IF he is concerned with late term abortions which are basically abortions after 20 weeks gestation.

            I appreciate your information on the motion, I believe you are right about the wording of the motion. I am wondering about the speech given with the motion. I know some people, Ms. Ambrose for instance, voted in a certain way because she wanted to denounce sex-selection abortion. Do you know the exact wording that the committee used to deny Mr. Warawa’s motion?

      • Oh, deadly serious…totally…I’m just utterly distraught about Warawa’s true motivation. I’m not sure I can carry on in the face of this devastating realization. I mean, who else knew??

  3. Aaron, when is ANY Canadian journalist going to ask these crusaders for ONE piece of reliable source material supporting their claims that ‘sex-selection abortion is happening in Canada’. When is any journalist going to ask them for statistics on numbers of incidences of sex-selection abortion; where it is happening and who is providing the service. This ENTIRE ‘freedom of speech’ soapbox was all about a crusade to re-open Canada’s abortion laws and ensure Canadians are made to feel that they cannot trust the medical system to deal abortions as they have always done. No one is talking to the Canadian Medical Association or CEO’s of health authorities to get any accurate information.

    • Maybe so, but that still doesn’t give Harper, his whip – or you – the right to silence them. Let them have their say, then vote them down. Or out, come next election.

      • Yes but you must be disseminating accurate information and these people were not. They have never offered one iota of information that has supported their claims that sex-selection abortion is a problem in Canada. If you are going to make claims in parliament then at least there should be some sort of veracity to them. They were raising panic among the population about situation that isn’t even occurring. How is supporting that BS, supporting freedom of speech…more like freedom to spread unsubstantiated fear. Next they’ll get on the religious crusade about HPV vaccine causing promiscuity among teenage girls and we will have them spewing their fear mongering about that.

Sign in to comment.