Motion 312 is defeated

by Aaron Wherry

Motion 312 has been defeated in the House of Commons by a vote of 203-91.

By my count, four Liberals supported the motion—Jim Karygiannis, John McKay, Lawrence MacAulay and Kevin Lamoureux. That would mean 87 Conservatives voted in favour. I counted some number of cabinet ministers among those Conservatives.

I’ll post the full roll call once it is released.

Update 7:37pm. And here is the alphabetical roll call.

yea/pour Ablonczy
nay/contre Adams
nay/contre Adler
nay/contre Aglukkaq
nay/contre Albas
yea/pour Albrecht
nay/contre Alexander
yea/pour Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
nay/contre Allen (Welland)
yea/pour Allison
yea/pour Ambler
yea/pour Ambrose
yea/pour Anders
yea/pour Anderson
nay/contre Andrews
nay/contre Angus
nay/contre Armstrong
nay/contre Ashfield
nay/contre Ashton
nay/contre Aspin
nay/contre Atamanenko
nay/contre Aubin
nay/contre Ayala
nay/contre Baird
nay/contre Bateman
nay/contre Bélanger
nay/contre Bellavance
nay/contre Bennett
yea/pour Benoit
nay/contre Benskin
yea/pour Bergen
nay/contre Bernier
nay/contre Bevington
yea/pour Bezan
nay/contre Blanchette
nay/contre Blanchette-Lamothe
nay/contre Blaney
yea/pour Block
nay/contre Boivin
nay/contre Borg
yea/pour Boughen
nay/contre Boulerice
nay/contre Boutin-Sweet
nay/contre Brahmi
nay/contre Braid
yea/pour Breitkreuz
nay/contre Brison
nay/contre Brosseau
yea/pour Brown (Barrie)
yea/pour Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
yea/pour Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
yea/pour Bruinooge
nay/contre Butt
nay/contre Byrne
nay/contre Calandra
yea/pour Calkins
yea/pour Cannan
nay/contre Carmichael
nay/contre Caron
yea/pour Carrie
nay/contre Casey
nay/contre Cash
nay/contre Charlton
nay/contre Chicoine
nay/contre Chisholm
nay/contre Chisu
yea/pour Chong
nay/contre Choquette
nay/contre Chow
nay/contre Christopherson
yea/pour Clarke
nay/contre Cleary
nay/contre Clement
nay/contre Comartin
nay/contre Côté
nay/contre Crowder
nay/contre Cullen
nay/contre Cuzner
nay/contre Daniel
yea/pour Davidson
nay/contre Davies (Vancouver East)
nay/contre Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
nay/contre Day
nay/contre Dechert
yea/pour Del Mastro
yea/pour Devolin
nay/contre Dewar
nay/contre Dionne Labelle
nay/contre Doré Lefebvre
yea/pour Dreeshen
nay/contre Dubé
nay/contre Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
nay/contre Duncan (Etobicoke North)
nay/contre Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
nay/contre Dusseault
nay/contre Dykstra
nay/contre Easter
nay/contre Eyking
yea/pour Fantino
yea/pour Fast
nay/contre Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
nay/contre Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
nay/contre Flaherty
nay/contre Fletcher
nay/contre Foote
nay/contre Freeman
nay/contre Fry
yea/pour Galipeau
yea/pour Gallant
nay/contre Garneau
nay/contre Garrison
nay/contre Genest
nay/contre Genest-Jourdain
nay/contre Giguère
nay/contre Gill
nay/contre Glover
nay/contre Godin
nay/contre Goguen
yea/pour Goldring
nay/contre Goodale
nay/contre Goodyear
nay/contre Gosal
nay/contre Gourde
nay/contre Gravelle
yea/pour Grewal
nay/contre Groguhé
nay/contre Harper
yea/pour Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
nay/contre Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
nay/contre Harris (St. John’s East)
nay/contre Hassainia
yea/pour Hawn
yea/pour Hayes
yea/pour Hiebert
yea/pour Hillyer
nay/contre Hoback
nay/contre Holder
nay/contre Hsu
nay/contre Hughes
nay/contre Hyer
nay/contre Jacob
yea/pour James
yea/pour Jean
yea/pour Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
yea/pour Karygiannis
nay/contre Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret’s)
nay/contre Kellway
yea/pour Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
nay/contre Kent
nay/contre Kerr
yea/pour Komarnicki
nay/contre Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
yea/pour Lake
yea/pour Lamoureux
nay/contre Lapointe
nay/contre Larose
nay/contre Latendresse
yea/pour Lauzon
nay/contre Laverdière
nay/contre Lebel
nay/contre LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
nay/contre LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
nay/contre Leef
nay/contre Leitch
yea/pour Lemieux
nay/contre Leslie
nay/contre Leung
nay/contre Liu
yea/pour Lizon
yea/pour Lobb
yea/pour Lukiwski
yea/pour Lunney
yea/pour MacAulay
nay/contre MacKay (Central Nova)
nay/contre MacKenzie
nay/contre Mai
nay/contre Marston
nay/contre Martin
nay/contre Masse
nay/contre Mathyssen
nay/contre May
yea/pour Mayes
nay/contre McCallum
yea/pour McColeman
nay/contre McGuinty
yea/pour McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
nay/contre McLeod
nay/contre Menegakis
nay/contre Menzies
yea/pour Merrifield
nay/contre Michaud
yea/pour Miller
nay/contre Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
yea/pour Moore (Fundy Royal)
nay/contre Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
nay/contre Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
nay/contre Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
nay/contre Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
nay/contre Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
nay/contre Mourani
nay/contre Mulcair
nay/contre Murray
nay/contre Nantel
nay/contre Nash
nay/contre Nicholls
nay/contre Nicholson
yea/pour Norlock
nay/contre Nunez-Melo
nay/contre Obhrai
nay/contre O’Connor
yea/pour O’Neill Gordon
yea/pour Opitz
nay/contre Pacetti
nay/contre Papillon
nay/contre Paradis
nay/contre Patry
yea/pour Payne
nay/contre Péclet
yea/pour Penashue
nay/contre Perreault
nay/contre Pilon
nay/contre Plamondon
yea/pour Poilievre
nay/contre Preston
nay/contre Quach
nay/contre Rae
nay/contre Raitt
yea/pour Rajotte
yea/pour Rathgeber
nay/contre Ravignat
nay/contre Raynault
nay/contre Regan
nay/contre Reid
nay/contre Rempel
nay/contre Richards
nay/contre Rickford
yea/pour Ritz
nay/contre Rousseau
nay/contre Sandhu
nay/contre Saxton
nay/contre Scarpaleggia
nay/contre Schellenberger
nay/contre Scott
yea/pour Seeback
nay/contre Sellah
nay/contre Sgro
yea/pour Shea
yea/pour Shipley
nay/contre Shory
nay/contre Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
nay/contre Sims (Newton—North Delta)
nay/contre Sitsabaiesan
nay/contre Smith
nay/contre Sopuck
yea/pour Sorenson
nay/contre Stanton
nay/contre St-Denis
nay/contre Stewart
nay/contre Stoffer
yea/pour Storseth
yea/pour Strahl
nay/contre Sullivan
yea/pour Sweet
nay/contre Thibeault
nay/contre Tilson
yea/pour Toet
nay/contre Toone
nay/contre Tremblay
yea/pour Trost
nay/contre Trottier
nay/contre Trudeau
nay/contre Truppe
nay/contre Turmel
yea/pour Tweed
nay/contre Uppal
nay/contre Valcourt
nay/contre Valeriote
yea/pour Van Kesteren
yea/pour Van Loan
yea/pour Vellacott
nay/contre Wallace
yea/pour Warawa
yea/pour Warkentin
yea/pour Watson
yea/pour Weston (Saint John)
yea/pour Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
nay/contre Wilks
yea/pour Williamson
yea/pour Wong
yea/pour Woodworth
nay/contre Yelich
yea/pour Young (Oakville)
nay/contre Young (Vancouver South)
yea/pour Zimmer




Browse

Motion 312 is defeated

  1. I am flabbergasted that Rona Ambrose, the minister responsible for the status of women, voted in favour of this. Dark ages in Canada, once again.

    • Oh lighten up. The only dark age that is descending on Canada is the darkness of silence. You are afraid to talk about this issue because you know you would lose in a fair fight. You only maintain this charade around the issue of abortion by name-calling and fear-mongering.

      Every other developed country on the planet has a law that speaks to abortion. Get a life. Oh yeah, you’re against life. Nevermind.

      • Do stop being silly.

        • How is that being silly?

          • The decision was made years ago. Are we going to re-argue every decision that was made over the years? If so, I propose Alberta’s membership in confederation is next.

            Or SoCons in general…..I move we deport them all to Iran where they belong.

          • “Are we going to re-argue every decision that was made over the years?”

            That’s the whole point of a democracy Emily. Decisions are debated and laws changed all the time. If that were not true, abortions would still be illegal.

          • No actually, it’s not

            Democracies would bog down if we rehashed everything all the time.

            Move on.

          • We would still have prohibition. Women would not be able to vote.

            More recently, we would still have a long gun registry and a Canadian Wheat Board.

            Not every issue gets revisited, but those the party in power considers worth looking at – or those presented in member’s bills – do.

            That is the whole point of a democracy. Whether the changes are positive or negative depends on one’s viewpoint, but in a democracy change is constant.

          • People like you would be in chain gangs…..LOL

            No, sorry….not a democracy.

            Now go find someone’s grammar to correct…..you’re good at that.

          • OK; that last comment makes absolutely no sense. Time to put down the bottle and go back on your meds.

          • It makes no sense, because you haven’t any.

            Now move along.

          • Great come back Emily!!!

          • Nitpicky, but IIRC abortions in Canada didn’t stop being illegal when a previous parliament debated the issue…other ‘means’ were used.

          • More nitpicking: if I remember correctly, the judges used the Charter to overturn the abortion law. But the Charter itself could not exist if we could not debate and reform earlier laws. So the “other means” would not have been available.

            But my main point was that Emily was, as is so often the case, spouting nonsense.

          • True enough. And I’m actually in agreement with your overall premise that revisiting past decisions is completely acceptable – or at least should not, as a rule, be excluded as a possibility.

            Sort of like science, where we are totally open to incorporating new knowledge into old theories to produce newer and hopefully better theories.

            The ‘trick’, of course, is to strive for the right balance between revisiting old decisions//issues and addressing newly emerging decisions/issues.

          • Agreed.

    • She has come a long way from ‘we don’t need old white guys telling us what to do’.

    • This is not about the rights of women, that is a separate issue
      This is about the respect of a human life and the fact that no matter what stage of life you are in, you are still a human being

      • Oh sure, we women will just sit and be quiet until you guys figure out the supposed science. Rights would just get in the way of the discussion.

        • ?? this has nothing, i mean absolutely nothing to do with science in my opinion, this is basic, fundamental moral law. We as a organized society decided that murdering another human being was wrong and immoral. Now why does that fundamental code get tossed aside when talking about a baby in the womb? Were we not all once in that stage of life?

          • So, you stand with Todd Akin on the “Legitimate Rape” table?

      • …Unless that stage of life happens to be “female?”

    • oh really, let me tell you this, blacks didn’t chose slavery, jews didn’t chose holocaust, baby didn’t chose abortion, everybody has the voice but the victim (ps. I got this from one of the pics and it is very true, we are living in dark ages righ NOW)

  2. Thank you, Rona Ambrose, for supporting a motion to inquire as to whether or not Canadian law gets it right about women.

    • Agreed. She should resign.

  3. In a place like Parliament one would think there would be a whole lot more “parling” going on. To shut down discussion on any issue like this should be an embarrasment to the House that goes by the name of the house of speaking. Shame on 69% of the members who shut this down.

    • The CPC have been shutting down discussion of nearly every bill since the election. What makes this one different?

  4. If people got the church out of politics as well as legal issues, this would never be brought up. A womans body is her own, and NO-ONE has the right to tell her what she can or cannot do with it. You bible thumpers need to get a life and realise God will make his/her own judgement. It’s not your job. Leave it alone. He/She is more than capable.

    • yes Jeff I agree.. if you believe in God’s will.. let it be.. My body doesn’t belong to the state or country.. my body doesn’t belong to a religion, my body belongs to me.

    • See, the assumption of most pro-choicers seems to be that the motion would necessarily restrict abortions if passed. That may or may have not been the endgame, but Motion 312 would not on its own have led to this.

      On the other hand, it would have opened up discussion that may have dealt with the absurdity wherein legal rights are determined by geography.

      Case in point: a man kills a preemie of eight months’ gestation. He then stabs an eight-month-pregnant woman in the belly and kills her child. He can be charged with murder for the death of the preemie but not for the death of the in utero child.

      Does that make any sense to you? Do you think the parents on the in utero child would grieve any less than the parents of the preemie?

      We need a better law than we have at present. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “LALALALA” out of fear of what might happen is an incredibly immature approach to this issue.

      • This is the most socially conservative government we’ve have and they officially don’t want to open this up. And now that this PMB has failed to pass, who do you think would bring it up again?

        • Probably no one. The cowardice of politicians on this issue is legendary. So we’re going to be stuck with an unjust law for a long time. But that doesn’t make it right.

        • Sharia will, once Western liberals fail to reproduce to any appreciable degree while immigration and 8x Western fertility rates provide a critical mass to form majorities in government. As is happening in Europe.

    • What does church have to do with examining fetal MRI’s,
      ultrasounds, brain wave scans, and genetics to see if modification in light of new evidence of a working
      definition crafted in British common law in the 1600′s is necessary?

  5. men have no rights to my body.

    • I don’t think that men want the rights to your body, sorry
      I think the issue is that many people (men and WOMEN) want to protect the life of an innocent, unborn baby.
      I understand that the baby is inside a woman, and that it is 100% dependent on her. but I would argue that the baby is also just as dependent on her after coming out of the womb, and yet killing it then, is deemed to be illegal

      • And yet, a rape child who may be hated and despised it’s entire life is better? What if the woman dies during birth? Are we then going to charge the rapist with murder?
        You’re short sighted desire to simply be “pro-life” fails to take into account the life of the woman, and puts it under the life of the fetus, suggesting that pregnant women, in your opinion, are less than human, fit only for breeding.

        • as a mother I will tell you this, motherly love is so great, many mothers without hesitation put their lives at risk to save their children, because this is what mothers do protect their children not expose them to death period.

      • if you don’t want abortion.. than grow a womb.. chop it off.. stop having sex.. you have no right to play God.. to tell me or anyone what is right for me or any other person. What should be illegal is this fricken debate. The problem is not when the fetus becomes a life but the fact that the male race is currently destroying all life by the need to fricken control every living and creeping thing on this planet.. when will you learn to live an let live and mind your own fricken business.. there are to many variables to decide for a woman when or if she should have an abortion.. your not God.. you didn’t create the very first spark of life.. get you own life and stop trying to live the lives of women for them.. period.. do not pardon the pun..but do you have a period..and if you do…if you had an abortion and you feel guilty about it..stop inflicting your guilt on other’s by means of control..get some help in dealing with it on your own..in your OWN LIFE..don’t pardon the pun there either.. LIFE.. guess you can have a faceless and nameless opinion ..really? So not brave.

  6. Dark ages?, dark ages?,
    We can’t get past the archaic primitivity of segregating one group of human beings from anotherso we can abuse them and you say updating our 400 year old definition of what is a person is going back to the dark ages, give your archaic head a shake you primitive cave people.

  7. For all the feminist fundies out there, explain this: if abortion is about women’s rights, why are most pro-”choice” people disgusted by the thought of sex-selective abortion? And further why is it that most pro-”choice” people are anti-”pro-life”? If it’s a choice, why aren’t many choosing life? Ms. Ambrose voted on an issue that has NOTHING to do with women’s right’s. Motion 312, for the first time since 1988, focused on the RIGHTS of the unborn CHILD. Why is it that women get so up in arms about that? Abortion has NOTHING to do with a woman’s right. If it were, women could kill their 4 day old newborn as well, for any reason. And don’t you find it bizarre that you need a reason to get divorced in Canada, but you don’t need a reason to kill your child? That’s my rant. I won’t get into the debate here, for two reasons: first, the pro-life argument is much, much stronger, so secondly, it turns into name calling and blasphemy. Science supports pro-life. To view the unborn as nothing more than a “tissue” or “growth” is archaic. We’re in the 21st century. Life begins the moment that the egg and sperm cell’s nuclei form one nucleus and cell division begins. To deny that is to deny that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen…
    I’m done now.

  8. “woman’s body is her own body” so womans body has two hearts, two livers, four legs four hands and so on…?, woman’s body is her body but baby body is baby’s body and NO ONE should have the right to harm that body SIMPLE AS THAT, and people change your tune, my body my right blah blah BORINGGGGG

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *