Federal Voting Records

MP Irene Mathyssen

New Democrat Party, London - Fanshawe, ON

Bio

Irene Mathyssen
Not Supportable
CLC rating: Pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage
Rating Comments: According to letter received from Shawn Lewis, the Vice President for the Southwestern Ontario NDP, the official NDP policy is pro-abortion. In 2012 this anti-science MP voted against Stephen Woodworth's principled Motion 312 to study whether a child in the womb is a human being based on the preponderence of evidence from modern medical science. She also voted in favour of the reckless, transgender 'Bathroom Bill' (C-279) which, if passed, will put young girls and women at risk by creating a counterfeit, legal 'right' for men to access women's bathrooms and changerooms.
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2006.01.23
Previous Occupation: Community activist, high school teacher
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1951.08.16
Percentage in last election: 38% (2015); 50.90% (2011)
Victory margin last election: 11% (2015); 17.36% (2011)
Religion / Faith: not known

Contact

Irene Mathyssen
Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-995-2901
Fax: 613-943-8717
Constituency Offices
1700 Dundas St., Unit D
London, Ontario
N5W 3C9
Tel: 519-685-4745
Fax: 519-685-1462

Votes

Here is Irene Mathyssen's voting record relating to life and family issues:

Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision Vote Score
Not Supportable
Conservative Motion (Vote #459) to exempt some (but not all) employers from having to sign an attestation in support of Justin Trudeau’s personal, Liberal social values, as a pre-condition to access federal funding to hire students via the Canada Summer Jobs Program. The motion sought to exempt organizations that engage in activities such as feeding the homeless and helping refugees from have to affirm their agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal values.
This was a clever trap to get Liberals on record voting to defund organizations that feed the hungry and serve refugees. As far as a political shaming exercise goes, it was effective, with all but one Liberal MP voting to not allow conscientious objection by employers (of a non-political non-activist nature) from having to pledge loyalty to abortion and transgender ideology, in exchange for federal funds. Liberal and NDP MPs voted almost unanimously against the motion, revealing just how radically devoted to in-utero child-killing they are. The shame heaped on those rabidly pro-abortion MPs is well-deserved, and so, Campaign Life Coalition has given them a negative score for this vote. All Conservative MPs who were present voted in favour of the motion. Nonetheless, CLC cannot count this a positive vote because the motion was half-hearted, cowardly, and represented a betrayal of the pro-life movement, surrendering pro-life organizations to continued Liberal tyranny. The motion does not seek to protect ALL Canadian employers from being coerced to pledge fealty to abortion and transgender ideology in exchange for government funding. Another major problem was that implicit in the motion, the Scheer Conservatives gave tacit approval for Justin Trudeau to continue his ideological discrimination against some employers. Namely, those employers who engage in pro-life “political activist work”. Why should Conservatives betray front line workers in the pro-life movement to this Liberal tyranny? Why is it acceptable to violate our constitutional rights to freedom of religion and conscience? Are our rights any less important than those of other employers? It is our tax money that is being distributed too. Our conscience rights are to be respected, as are those of every other Canadian citizen. The Scheer Conservatives threw under the bus, the many front-line pro-life workers in organizations like Campaign Life Coalition, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and Toronto Right To Life, who sacrifice so much to save preborn human lives. This motion could have protected all Canadians, but the Conservatives chose not to protect us all from Justin Trudeau’s ideological coercion. As a pro-life party Leader, Andrew Scheer could also have chosen to use this motion to advance debate on abortion and the right to life. Instead, he passed up that opportunity by carefully avoiding any mention of the word “abortion” in the motion itself, as well as in any comments made by himself or other MPs. It seems reasonable to conclude that orders were given by Scheer’s office that Conservative MPs must not mention the A-word. This represents a second betrayal. For this reason, Yes votes by Conservative MPs have been scored as neutral. [Vote March 19, 2018 - defeated 207 to 93]
No bad
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 bad
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 )
No bad
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 bad
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 bad
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 )
No bad
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.
Yes bad
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 bad
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 ok
Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler
Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008)
Yes bad
Bob Rae's pro-abortion Motion
A Liberal Motion to expand abortion & contraception throughout Africa, at Canadian taxpayer expense. This was an attempt to co-opt a good Maternal & Child Health initiative of the Conservative government whose purpose was saving the lives of pregnant women and children by providing clean water, medicine and health-care workers assist with child birth. Bob Rae's abortion Motion was narrowly defeated 138 to 144. [Mar. 23, 2010]
Yes bad
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)
No bad
Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage
[Dec 2006]
No bad
Marched in a Gay Pride Parade or endorsed it
Gay Pride festivals are controversial, often feature mock sex acts in public and are offensive to many, perhaps most, Canadians. As such it is inaprropriate for an elected representative to endorse one side of this socially divisive issue. Elected officials are supposed to represent ALL their consituents, not just the politically correct ones.
Sponsored ad in 2010 London gay Pride brochure bad
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]
No bad
Amendment to protect freedom of conscience for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and healthcare institutions to refuse to participate in euthanasia, either directly or indirectly
Conservative MP Michael Cooper proposed this amendment to the Liberal government’s pro-euthanasia Bill C-14, so as to protect the freedoms of conscience and religion for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare workers and institutions to refuse to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, either directly by committing the murder, or indirectly by referring the patient to be killed by someone else. Tragically, the common sense amendment was defeated by a vote of 97 Yeas to 222 Nays. Basically, almost all Conservatives voted well, and virtually all Liberals, NDP and Bloc MPs voted to crush freedom of conscience. [May 30, 2016, Vote No. 72]
No bad
Bill C225 - 2nd reading of 'Cassie & Molly's Law' bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to make it a separate offence to kill or injure a preborn child while committing violent crime against a woman while knowing she is pregnant. It would also add stiff minimum sentences if the unborn child is killed or injured.
This excellent Bill, introduced on February 23, 2016 by Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall, and co-sponsored by Conservative MP Rachael Harder, would bridge a terrible gap in Canada’s criminal justice system by increasing respect for the dignity and intrinsic worth of preborn children. [Defeated October 19, 2016 by a vote of 76 Ayes to 209 Nays]
No bad
Bill C16 - 2nd reading of a Bill to amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
This totalitarian Bill, introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould on May 17, 2016, would invent, in law, a new breed of human person out of those suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, and threatens to punish those who refuse to affirm transexualized alter-egos, using the state's dragnet of "hate propaganda". [Passed October 18, 2016 by a vote of 248 Ayes to 40 Nays]
Yes bad
Bill C45 - 2nd reading of a bill to legalize the possession and recreational use of cannabis (commonly known as marijuana).
Dubbed the Cannabis Act, this irresponsible bill was introduced on April 13, 2017 by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. Though purportedly introduced to help keep marijuana out of the hands of children, Bill C45 would actaully have the opposite effect. The bill would not only legalize the possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis by individuals 18 years of age and over for purely recreational use, but it would also remove any criminal penalties for children aged 12 to 17 who possess up to five grams of marijuana, and would further allow people to freely grow marijuana in their own homes, even if children are present. This would make marijuana more accessible than ever before to children from the hands of possessing adults, and the dramatically increased access and societal acceptance of open marijuana use would excite the appeal and desirability of this dangerous, mind-impairing gateway drug among children and youth. [Vote June 8, 2017 - passed 200 to 76]
Yes bad
Bill C45 - 3rd reading of a bill to legalize the possession and recreational use of cannabis (commonly known as marijuana).
Dubbed the Cannabis Act, this irresponsible bill was introduced on April 13, 2017 by Liberal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould. Though purportedly introduced to help keep marijuana out of the hands of children, Bill C45 would actaully have the opposite effect. The bill would not only legalize the possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis by individuals 18 years of age and over for purely recreational use, but it would also remove any criminal penalties for children aged 12 to 17 who possess up to five grams of marijuana, and would further allow people to freely grow marijuana in their own homes, even if children are present. This would make marijuana more accessible than ever before to children from the hands of possessing adults, and the dramatically increased access and societal acceptance of open marijuana use would excite the appeal and desirability of this dangerous, mind-impairing gateway drug among children and youth. [Vote Nov. 27, 2017 - passed 200 to 82]
Yes bad

Quotes

Here are quotes from Irene Mathyssen on various life and family issues:

On the legal right to kill children in utero:  "A woman's right to choose was hard fought for. It would be detrimental to Canadian women and an international embarrassment to remove that right.... I hope all thoughtful members of this House will respect a woman's right to choose and respect the fact that women need safety..." [Hansard transcript, Mar, 3, 2008]

On controversial third trimester abortionist:  "Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in his church in Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Tiller, a man of great integrity and compassion, worked every day for women's rights. He ran a women's health clinic and had been under threat by the anti-abortion movement for many years. Similarly, abortion doctors in Canada are threatened. ..What is the government doing to protect Canadian doctors and ensure the right of Canadian women to reproductive choice?" [Hansard transcript, Jun. 2, 2009]

Claiming that women's equality is having access to abortion and that abortion is a "fundamental" women's right:  “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims to be a feminist, but on International Women's Day, he is content to merely re-announce old promises. If equality truly matters to the government, it should fund women's reproductive health. The best way is to ensure all women have access to birth control. Such access reduces unintended pregnancy, abortion, is cost saving, and a cornerstone to women's human rights.
Will the government take a stand for women and support my motion to make birth control free for women in Canada?”
[Parliamentary Hansard, "Health Oral Questions", March 8, 2017.]

Asking for the accessibility of the expensive and dangerous abortion pill:  “Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first is from a number of Canadians asking the Parliament of Canada to consider the availability of the abortion pill, Mifegymiso...The petitioners ask that the Parliament of Canada converse with the provinces and territories to ensure that the cost is acceptable, that the government promptly implement universal cost coverage for this drug, that programs be put in place, and that the pharmaceutical be rolled out in the most timely and inclusive way possible.”
[Parliamentary Hansard, "Abortion Petitions Routine Proceedings", January 29, 2018.]

Speaking about the government "failing" in the case of abortion and other birth controls not being easily accessible to all women:  “...we continue with a patchwork system of access to abortion and birth control that creates inequality and forces Canadians who require those services to either pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs or travel unreasonable hours to access these services. Monday was International Birth Control Day. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure equal access for all Canadians needing birth control, but the government has failed. Access is neither universal, equal, nor affordable across this country.” [Parliamentary Hansard, "Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 Government Orders", May 31, 2018.]

Pleading for the Canadian government to make abortion more accessible:  "Mr. Speaker, this Friday, Canada will be held accountable for its human rights record at our third periodic review at the UN. Safe and equal access to abortion is the right of all Canadians, yet this access remains shockingly inconsistent. Women living in rural areas often travel unacceptable distances to access an abortion clinic. It is unconscionable.
When will the government use the Canada Health Act to grant all Canadians their right to safe and equal access to abortion?"
[Parliamentary Hansard, "Health Oral Questions", May 9, 2018.]

Questionnaire

Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Irene Mathyssen on 2015.

Question Response
Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? no response
If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? No (per party policy)
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 (per party policy)
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) All circumstances (per party policy)
If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate killing (euthanasia) of a human being regardless of age, state of health, or "anticipated quality of life" or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? no response

There are no videos available for Irene Mathyssen. If you have relevant video from all-candidate meetings or other functions that is not copyrighted by a third party, please send it to us.

  • Legend for Light Rating System
  • Green Light
    GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE
  • Red Light
    RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE
  • Amber Light
    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.
Debug Information

System Info

sE_Section Info

DB Queries (16 total)

Session (1 total)

Get (2 total)