Candidate, Laurie Hawn
Conservative Party, Edmonton Centre, AB
Bio
CLC rating: Pro-abortion
Rating Comments: Refused to respond to questionnaire. In a scrum about Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312, he told reporters that he would not take away a woman's "choice" to have an abortionist kill the child in her womb. He was also one of the disgraceful Conservative MPs who voted in favour of the radical transgender "Bathroom Bill", which would give men who claim to have an inner sense of "being a woman", the right to enter female washrooms, thus putting women and young girls at greater risk from sexual predators.
Position: Public Safety and National Security Committee
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2006.01.23
Previous Occupation: Broker, businessman, investment counsellor
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1947.05.11
Percentage in last election: 49.0%
Victory margin last election: 21.6%
Religion / Faith: not known
Contact
Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
400 Justice Bldg
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-992-4524
Fax: 613-943-0044
Constituency Offices
11156 142 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta
T5M 4G5
Tel: 780-442-1888
Fax: 780-442-1891
Here is Laurie Hawn'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] |
Yes |  |
| 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] |
Yes | |
| 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. |
Yes | |
| Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage [Dec 2006] |
Yes | |
| 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] |
Yes |  |
| C-484, Unborn victims of Crime Act Common sense legislation that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the childs mother is the victim of violent crime. This cannot be considered a "pro-life" bill because it specifically excludes deliberate acts of abortion by the woman. Nonetheless, it is a good "pro-family" bill because it protects women and their wanted children from violent crime. (Mar5/08) |
Supported | |
| 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] |
Yes | |
| Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008) |
Opposed | |
| 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] |
No | |
| 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 Laurie Hawn on various life and family issues:
Hawn responded to a reporter about his vote on Motion 312 (study whether a child in the womb is a human) and his views on abortion: "...when they say to me are you pro-choice or pro-life, I say yes. Because nobody's anti-life and nobody's anti-choice. I'll use my daughter as an example. If she got pregnant out of wedlock... I would encourage her very strongly to have the child, give it up for adoption if necessary. I would want her to have all the counselling -- religious, family, medical, whatever. If she ultimately decided to have an abortion, I would still love her, she's still my daughter, I would want her to have the best medical care. I might personally regret her decision but it's her decision and I would respect that."
Reporter: And you wouldn't remove her choice.
"No. Absolutely not... For me, voting yes is not to do with my position on abortion because I think we're all going to be judged, you know, by somebody above my pay grade, at some point... I'm being as honest as I can be about why I'm voting yes. It's got nothing to do, as I said, with my position on abortion, which I think is reasonably balanced. I'm not going to take away a woman's right. I might regret their decisions but it's their decision. And they'll be judged somewhere else, not by me."
[CBC.ca, Inside Politics Blog, 'Nobody's anti-life and nobody's anti-choice', Laura Payton, Sep 26, 2012]
Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Laurie Hawn on 2008.
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? | no response |
| If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? | 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 |
| If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate euthanasia of a human being or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? | no response |
There are no videos available for Laurie Hawn.
-
GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE -
RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE -
AMBER light means voters should be cautious about the candidate. CLC is still evaluating this individual, does not have enough data, or their record is mixed. View their quotes & voting history to help you decide.