Candidate, Andrew Saxton
Conservative Party, North Vancouver, BC
Bio
CLC rating: Pro-abortion
Rating Comments: During his career in parliament he had the opportunity to vote on two pro-life bills. He was absent for one. He voted against the other - Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 - which sought to study when a child in the womb becomes a human being.
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2008.10.14
Previous Occupation: Banker, businessman
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1964.03.11
Percentage in last election: 26.87% (2019) ; 27% (2015); 42.3% (2011)
Victory margin last election: -16.00% (2019) ; -30% (2015); 4.9% (2011)
Religion / Faith: not known
Contact
Parliamentary Office
Here is Andrew Saxton's voting record relating to life and family issues:
Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision | Vote | Score |
---|---|---|
Bill C36, third reading: To protect exploited persons from prostitution by criminalizing pimps and the purchase of human beings for sex. After the black-robed activists who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our Criminal Code prohibitions against prostitution, the Conservative government put forward this new legislation, modelled on the successful nordic law, to protect women from prostitution and the degradation of communities. The bill passed by a vote of 156 to 124. It is shameful that 124 Members of Parliament voted to protect the evil, exploitative practice of prostitution. [October 6, 2014] |
Absent or abstained | -- |
Motion 312: Studying Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being Motion 312 (sponsored by MP Stephen Woodworth) called for parliament to review 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. |
No | |
Bill C279 - 3rd reading of 'transgender & transsexual' empowerment bill which added the radical concepts of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison sought to invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote March 20, 2013 - passed 150 to 137] |
Absent | -- |
Bill C389, 3rd reading of the "Transsexual Bathroom Bill" This radical bill sought to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would've endangered women and children by creating a legal right for men who "identify" as the opposite sex, to use female public washrooms. Male sexual predators or peeping toms would have certainly used this as an opening to enter the girl's washroom. It is unconscionable for legislators to put women and children in such a compromising position. It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. This bill passed final reading in House of Commons by a 143-135 vote on February 9, 2011, but then, thankfully, died in the Senate when a federal election was called. |
No | |
Bill C279 - 2nd reading, to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison would invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote June 6, 2012 - passed 150 to 132] |
No | |
Bill C-384, Legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide A horrible bill that would have given doctors permission to kill people who are seriously ill but not dying and who in fact, have a treatable condition. Doctors would also have been permitted to kill people suffering with treatable chronic depression. This bill was defeated on second reading, 59 votes in favour to 228 votes Against. [Apr 21, 2010] |
No | |
Bill C-510, to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort This private member's bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, also called Roxanne's Law, was a common sense bill to protect women and their unborn children from coercion to abort. Abortion coercion by boyfriends, husbands, relatives and even physicians is very common in Canada. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in 2nd reading by a vote of 97 to 178. [December 15, 2010] |
Absent | -- |
Bill C-304, 2nd Reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act This clause enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 158-131. (Feb 15, 2012 ) |
Yes | |
Bill C-304, 3rd reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13 enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 153-136. (June 6, 2012 ) |
Yes |
Here are quotes from Andrew Saxton on various life and family issues:
On C-384, a bill to legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide: "Please be advised that I remain very concerned about protecting the aged, the disabled or other vulnerable people who could be at risk by a repeal of the present prohibitions against assisted suicide" [Letter to constituent, Jul. 24, 2009]
Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Andrew Saxton on 2019.
Question | Response |
---|---|
Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? | no response |
Do you support the conscience rights of health care professionals to refuse to do or refer for medical procedures which they oppose? | no response |
If elected, would you vote in favour of a law to protect all unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? | no response |
If elected, will you vote to pass laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted-suicide, and vote to reject laws that would expand euthanasia and assisted-suicide? | no response |
Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) | no response |
There are no videos available for Andrew Saxton.