Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): 

    Mr. Speaker, I am really sad that the debate on my private member’s bill, Bill C-484, has been so focused lately on misrepresentation of the facts. This is a totally pro-choice bill in the true meaning of that phrase. It explicitly does not apply to elective abortion. It applies to a woman who wants to have a baby.

 There is a serious gap in the law that allows a criminal to violently take that choice and the child she wants away from her, against her will, without her consent, and with violence.

 People who support this bill understand the difference between a woman who goes to a doctor or clinic and says, “I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be. Please help me”, and the woman who is lying on the floor while being attacked with a fist, boot, knife, sword or gun, who is crying, screaming and pleading for her life, and the life of the unborn child that she wants.

Detractors of BillC-484 can stand with the assailant if they wish, but I am standing with and for the woman and the child that she wants.

Hansard 

‘Detractors’ are not standing with the assailant, if anything Mr. Epp’s remarks refute what he has said earlier this bill is about.

Bill C-484, a fetal homicide bill has unintended consequences and does nothing to protect mothers or to enforce adequate and existing legislation. It does nothing to reduce harm or violence. 
A province recently jailed an abused pregnant women citing her as a ‘material witness.’
What’s to stop other pregnant women from being jailed because they are seen as potential fetal threats? (it’s already happening in the US)

There is a serious gap in the law that allows a criminal to violently take that choice and the child she wants away from her, against her will, without her consent, and with violence.

There are adequate existing laws to deal with anyone who beats any woman, including pregnant ones. Lax enforcement, female and familial fear of reporting are far more critical issues in domestic violence.