Ted Falk
Provencher, Manitoba · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing sleep because of the Prime Minister . A new United Way report confirms that 40% say they lie awake, worrying how to stretch their paycheque to pay for food, gas and housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just like he manufactured a Liberal majority government, he has now manufactured a full-blown Liberal recession. Instead of building the second-fastest growing economy he promised, he has actually shrunk it.”
“Excuses simply do not cut it for children with empty stomachs, moms with empty grocery carts and parents with hollow bank accounts. The Liberals need to admit their policies have failed, reverse course and position Canada for the win. It is time to get Canada back on track.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in recognizing that there is an affordability crisis and that Canadians need relief. It would certainly provide a lot of relief to almost every single Canadian family to have the price of gas reduced by the amount of taxes being charged by the Liberal government.”
“Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person. The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient.”
The complete record
Every one of 196 lines we hold for Ted Falk, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing sleep because of the Prime Minister . A new United Way report confirms that 40% say they lie awake, worrying how to stretch their paycheque to pay for food, gas and housing. While Canadians are awake with anxiety, these Liberals are asleep at the wheel, refusing to acknowledge that they have driven Canada into the only recession in the G20. Canadians carry the stress and lose the sleep while the Liberals keep hitting the snooze button on the consequences. Will the Prime Minister wake up and reverse his costly policies that are keeping Canadians awake at night?”
“Excuses simply do not cut it for children with empty stomachs, moms with empty grocery carts and parents with hollow bank accounts. The Liberals need to admit their policies have failed, reverse course and position Canada for the win. It is time to get Canada back on track.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just like he manufactured a Liberal majority government, he has now manufactured a full-blown Liberal recession. Instead of building the second-fastest growing economy he promised, he has actually shrunk it. All of this is from the same Prime Minister who described himself as the best person equipped to manage an economic crisis. In any other industry, that alone would call for a performance review. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just reported that there is only a 1% chance the government will meet and maintain its fiscal anchor of shrinking the deficit. Canada now has the highest household debt, the worst housing costs and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on why the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues refuse to admit the seriousness of our financial situation here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in recognizing that there is an affordability crisis and that Canadians need relief. It would certainly provide a lot of relief to almost every single Canadian family to have the price of gas reduced by the amount of taxes being charged by the Liberal government. We cannot control global oil prices, so those profits with the oil companies would be there. However, they are also going to generate a lot of corporate taxes to the federal government, which would offset the loss from reducing the excise tax, the GST and the industrial carbon tax on the price of fuel. Would the member agree with me that this would be a good start?”
“I am proud to introduce this framework on the access to and the use of cash. I urge all members to support it. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person. The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient. Cash protects privacy at a time when government, corporate and financial sector data collection is expanding dramatically. It is also the only truly anonymous payment method. This bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to require parliamentary approval before a central bank digital currency could be developed or issued. This legislation would ensure that future digital systems remain optional, not forced, and that Canadians retain control over their own finances. It would protect privacy, strengthen resilience and defend those who depend on physical currency.”
“moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to establish a framework for the continued access to and use of cash in Canada and to make related amendments to other Acts . Bill C-276. Introduction and first reading He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce the bill that would establish a national framework to protect Canadians' ability to access and use physical cash and to ensure that no central bank digital currency can be created without the express authorization of Parliament. In recent years, digital transactions have grown rapidly, but millions of Canadians still depend on cash for daily life. Seniors, indigenous communities, newcomers, people living in poverty, those in remote rural regions and victims of financial or domestic abuse rely on cash because it is accessible, reliable and safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, it sure did not take long for the Liberals to show their true character. Time allocation and closure motions are the kind of stuff we do when we want to ram things through without proper debate. I know my constituents expect me to come here and to thoroughly debate every single piece of legislation, to ensure that every avenue has been explored. They expect that we go down every rabbit hole and that we know what we are ending up with is a product we can all be pleased with. I think the justice system needs to be modernized. This has become clear at committee. I think it would be prudent for us to make sure we listen to the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse that has happened in the military to make sure this act really represents the justice they deserve.”
“Now the team will represent Manitoba at the Centennial Cup in Prince Edward Island, competing against the best junior A teams from across Canada. On behalf of the House, I congratulate the Niverville Nighthawks on its incredible achievement and wish the team continued success as it pursues a national championship. Go, Nighthawks.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I congratulate an extraordinary team from Provencher, the Niverville Nighthawks, on capturing the Manitoba Junior Hockey League championship. In just its fourth season, the Nighthawks achieved a record-setting 51‑6‑1 regular season and established itself as one of the most dominant teams in league history. It carried that success through the playoffs, defeating the Virden Oil Caps to capture the Turnbull Cup and become MJHL champions. The accomplishment is the result of a team effort, highlighted by exceptional individual performances and leadership throughout the organization. Goaltender Austin Dubinsky was named playoff MVP, Captain Adam Vigfusson led by example, Merik Boles was recognized with the top sportsmanship award and Coach Dwight Hirst was named coach of the year.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are moments in life when one looks back and says, “I could have. I would have. I should have.” We just could be at one of those moments. The Liberal government is only cancelling a third of the gas tax and for only a third of the year. Canadians do not want to get fooled; they want to get fuelled. Inflation is hurting, and the government can make the right decision to change that. Removing the full 25¢-per-litre of gas taxes could help families get to their child's activities, drive to work and pick up groceries. Conservatives want a country where Canadians do not have to choose between a full grocery cart and a full tank of gas. Removing all the taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year would save the average Canadian family $1,200 per year. That is a huge amount. Let us not look back on this moment with regret.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member highlighted a lot of areas. We know that with the stolen seats that the Liberals recently acquired from opposition members, they now have 50.8% of the seats in this House. What they are trying to do with this motion is acquire 58.3% of the seats in committees. That is actually very unreasonable. They are looking to have seven out of 12 members be Liberal members. Why would they not be happy with six out of 11? If the Liberals are so bent on having control of the voting, why do they not give up the chairmanship of those committees? Then they could have control of the votes. Would that not make them happy, if they had maybe 54% of the representation instead of 58%?”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way gave a very passionate speech. He implored us to speak to the issues and not about people, so I want to do that. I want to know in what realm he thinks it is reasonable to ask for a 60% majority on committees when the majority that the government has is closer to 50%.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly shameful. What we are seeing here is the Liberal government, immediately upon swearing in three new members today, calling for a closure motion on a very important debate that Canadians expect this Parliament to hold. The Liberals were not given a majority by Canadians. They stole a majority. Now, they are immediately abusing the power of a majority government to bring in this motion to give themselves a supermajority at committees so that they can ram through their legislation without proper debate. Canadians expect more from this Parliament than what the Liberals are offering today, and presenting a motion of closure is just inappropriate at this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from York—Durham for his excellent dissection of Bill C-22 , part 2. The Liberals have been trying to assure us that judicial oversight will be an important part of this bill. Does he see that as still being retained inside the bill as it is written?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that law enforcement need to have the tools to do their job and do it effectively so that we can put criminals behind bars where they belong. However, from a civil liberties perspective, can the member talk a little more about the protections for individual privacy that would be looked after in this bill?”
“The Prime Minister has only gone part of that way, with 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel fuel. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me why the government is only putting that measure in until September—”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about the rising cost of oil on the global markets and how that is affecting the price of gas and diesel fuel here. What he did not say is that when the price of fuel rises, the amount of taxes charged on that fuel also increases significantly. He did not talk about the $10 billion in extra revenue that the Liberal government is going to be realizing on the increased pricing. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider four things: removing the federal excise tax on gas and diesel, removing the fuel standard tax, removing the industrial carbon tax and removing the GST for the balance of the year. That would have put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians at 25¢ a litre.”
“Ending those four taxes would save almost 25¢ a litre, saving Canadian families roughly 20 bucks every time they fill up the tank. Canadians have been sacrificing long enough under the Liberal government. Suspend the fuel taxes, give Canadians—”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are pinching pennies as the Liberal government continues to pinch Canadians. Canadian families are struggling while the Liberal government is taking in cash every time Canadians fill up their gas tanks. Fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the Liberals stand to collect almost $10 billion in additional revenue because Canadians have to pay more at the pumps. Yesterday, when asked how he would help Canadians facing rising gas prices, the Prime Minister said he was still “looking” at it. Canadians do not need any more studying, waiting or another MOU. They need relief right now. Here is an idea for the Prime Minister: suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of 2026, remove the fuel excise tax, permanently scrap the industrial carbon and clean fuel standard taxes, and eliminate the GST on fuel.”
“Mr. Speaker, originally this legislation was presented in Bill C-2 , and there were lots and lots of problems with Bill C-2. It has been reintroduced now as Bill C-22 . Does the member find that the concerns that were addressed with Bill C-2 have been adequately addressed in this legislation?”
“Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms worthy of protection and promotion, not persecution. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and oppose any similar proposals in the future, and to protect and promote the religious freedoms of all Canadians, uphold their right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into all matters of faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also bring forward a petition addressing Bill C-9 , which will be voted on later today. The petitioning Canadian citizens wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the Liberals have proposed removing from the Criminal Code safeguards that protect good-faith expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, including those based on religious texts like the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. Canadians share the Liberals' desire to combat acts that propagate and normalize hate, but the proposal would not achieve that goal and would instead result in the persecution of people who hold and express in good faith sincerely held religious beliefs. Violence and threats are by definition excluded from the scope of that protection for freedom of expression and could never be expressed in good faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North , early in his speech, confirm to the House and Canadians that the auto pact plan, presented by the Conservatives through the member for Dufferin—Caledon and the leader of the official opposition , holds water. Those were the words he spoke. We know the plan that the Liberals have been following does not hold water. We have seen more and more plant closures and increased unemployment in the auto industry. Other than the comment of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about waiting to see what happens, does the member have any other plan for the auto industry here in Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from dozens of Canadians who are concerned about mental illness and recognize that mental illness is a serious and real illness, but who are calling on the House to support Bill C-218 , which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition. They believe that mental illness should be treated and not given a death sentence.”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend has done a phenomenal job on the justice committee of identifying the problems with Bill C-9 and defending not only the Christian faith but all faiths that would be implicated in this legislation. When I look at my community, I do not think there has been a bill or an issue that has had more correspondence directed to me, or to many members in this House on both sides, with constituents' concerns. When we look at how this could impact faith institutions, these are the institutions that began our universities, that began many of our hospitals and that continue to provide many of the social services in our communities, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting people in prison. Those primarily come out of faith institutions that are motivated by their understanding of scripture and the love of God.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is conflating many different thoughts in his question. The minister made it very clear when he was the chairman of the committee that books in the Bible, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Romans, were, in his opinion, hate language. If a pastor or a Sunday school teacher were to teach, in a good-faith way, what is written in those books, then under the removal of that particular protection in the criminal law, such an individual could be criminalized and could be prosecuted for teaching those passages.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we all know, and as Canadians should know, the Liberals made a deal with the Bloc to garner support for the bill. The Bloc had one request: to remove the good-faith religious exemption from the Criminal Code. The Liberals said, “Sure, we'll throw them under the bus. We really don't care. We want this legislation passed. We want to be able to control speech, emotion, thought and dissent, and if it means religious freedom, we'll do that too.” That is what is in the bill.”
“They are asking for the continued charter right to live in freedom according to their beliefs without being criminalized by their own government. They are asking to read their scriptures, teach their children, speak plainly in public and worship without fearing their long-held religious convictions. To wrap up, this should not be controversial. It should be the minimum standard in a free country. Conservatives believe that public safety matters. We also believe that Canadians should be free to live in their faith and speak plainly without being treated as criminals for holding traditional beliefs, and that is why Bill C-9 is wrong.”
“The question is whether the Liberal government is using real criminal hatred as a reason to widen the law into speech, belief, emotion and motive. (1525) This is what Bill C-9 would do. It would remove safeguards and expand the reach of hate-related offences beyond the law we already have. We have seen, in the U.K. and Australia, that dissenting voices are already being prosecuted. Once governments give themselves broad power over speech and expression, they tend to keep using it. When governments get used to treating speech as a problem to manage, the law starts to move in the wrong direction, and that is why Canadians should pay attention not only to what Bill C-9 says but to where it points. Religious Canadians are not asking for special treatment.”
“Parliament should punish actual crimes and protect space for lawful debate on the questions that will determine this country's direction. This is why the bill presents such a clear and serious danger. It goes beyond stopping violent acts. It opens the door for what is lawful expression, religious belief and principled disagreement today to be criminalized. The House should not permit that. Conservatives are not defending violence, threats, intimidation or genocide. Those acts are already crimes. The Criminal Code already bans advocating genocide; it already bans public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, and it already bans wilful promotion of hatred. The question before us is not whether real criminal hate should be punished. It already can and should be.”
“It means the government is willing to look at our faith and our biblical scriptures through the lens of criminality. That is a line we must never cross. Broad speech laws rarely remain limited to the extreme cases used to justify them. They begin there and expand outward into lawful disagreement or contentious public matters. Once the government is given broader power to regulate expression, that power seldom stays confined to real threats, violence or criminal incitement. It starts to extend into ordinary democratic discussion in which Canadians are speaking in good faith about real issues. Canadians should never have to wonder whether taking a clear position on a major public issue could place them under legal suspicion. A free society does not build confidence in the law that way.”
“It reflects a mindset that treats long-standing religious belief as something criminal. If the Prime Minister disagrees with that mindset, he should stand in this House and clearly condemn the comments from his minister . This would send a clear message to Canadians that he will protect the charter rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion and that he will vote against this amendment. Canadians should never have to fear prosecution for quoting the Bible, teaching its doctrine or discussing scriptures in good faith. The Liberal-Bloc amendment in Bill C-9 would remove the current defence for good-faith religious opinion and opinion based on religious text as hate propaganda. This is not some abstract concern. Christians see exactly what it means.”
“He was talking about the Holy Bible, scriptures that are inscribed and embedded into the architecture of Parliament, that have guided parliamentarians for the past 158 years. These scriptures have shaped our country and guided generations of Canadians; most Canadians still believe them today. That is why this matters so much. Once politicians start treating protected religious expression, because they do not necessarily agree with it, as presumptively hateful, the danger is no longer theoretical. It is immediate, visible and real. If passages from the Bible can be spoken of this way by people shaping criminal law, then this bill reaches into sermons, teaching, public witness and the ordinary expression of religious belief. That is the deeper and greater problem with Bill C-9 .”
“The next one is found in Romans 10, verse 9, where it says, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” It is followed up a few verses later with the assurance that whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved. That does not sound like hate language to me. That sounds like God's love language. When a Liberal member says passages from the Bible are clearly hateful, that perhaps that should not be available as a defence and that prosecutors should perhaps have discretion to press criminal charges, Canadians need to pay attention. It tells us a great deal about how the government is approaching speech, religion and criminal law. He was not talking about violent criminals.”
“We are going to start with what is known as the Romans road, which begins in Romans, chapter 3, verse 10, where it says, “As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, not even one...’”. A few verses later, it says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. That talks about all of us. We have all sinned, and we know that. Then Romans, chapter 5, verse 8, says, “But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” As for the posture in which Christ died, we are going to be celebrating that at Easter. It was on a cross with his arms stretched out, the posture of invitation, that he said, “Come to me. I have the answer for all your sins and your brokenness.” That is how he died.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I left off before question period, I was talking about a comment that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture made at committee. He said that books from the Holy Bible, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Romans, would be considered hate language. We were just diving into Romans and found out that the author was the apostle Paul, who was raised as a Jew in the strict sect of the Pharisees. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus and became a follower of Jesus. He also wrote many of the books in the Gospel of the New Testament. It is in that sense that we take a deeper look at Romans to see exactly what the minister might mean by “hate language”.”
“He was raised and educated in strict Jewish observance of laws, practices and theology, then he had an experience with Jesus and became a Christian. He gave his life to Jesus Christ through faith in him. The central theme of Romans, a book that Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, is the gospel of the revelation of God's righteousness, offering salvation to everyone who believes, regardless of Jewish or gentile background. It focuses on justification by faith alone, the universal need for salvation due to sin and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.”
“The Liberal government also saw it happen, but it was silent, “crickets”. Before Liberals begin lecturing Canadians about hate, they should explain why they have been so weak when Christian communities have been attacked in this country. Canadians do not have to guess where this bill is going because the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture already said it plainly. When he was the chair at the justice committee studying this bill, he said that books in the Bible, “Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans” were books of “clear hatred” and there “should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Those are serious words. What does Romans actually say? Romans is a book in the New Testament of the Holy Bible that was written by the Apostle Paul. We have to understand that Paul was born a Jew.”
“This bill would move criminal law away from punishing clear criminal acts to punishing contested ideas, alleged motives and beliefs that are at odds with the political agenda of the government. It would put the sincerely held religious beliefs of Canadians in the crosshairs, which are beliefs held by many Canadians today and by most Canadians throughout history. Violence against Christians is real. When churches are burned, schools are no longer safe and community spaces are targeted, Canadians expect the law to respond and Parliament to speak clearly. The Liberal government has not done that. Many Canadians were stunned that the House could not unanimously condemn church burnings and attacks on religious freedom. Since 2021, there have been more than 100 churches in Canada burned, vandalized or desecrated. Canadians saw it happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to give my thoughts on Bill C-9 . Hate, threats and intimidation are real. The issue is not whether hate exists, because it does. As a Christian, I condemn it. The issue is the Liberals using Bill C-9 to criminalize lawful speech, emotion and expression, sincerely held religious beliefs and ordinary public discourse. That is what this bill is attempting to do and it is what is at stake in this bill. Bill C-9 would give the government more power over freedom of speech and expression. It would hand a small, elite group of politicians, prosecutors and activists more power to decide which views held by ordinary Canadians are acceptable and which words should trigger criminal investigations. This should concern every single member of the House.”
“They keep pointing south of the border to shift the blame, but they cannot hide the math. Their taxes are making life more expensive. It is time to stop the excuses and put Canadians first. It is time to cut the taxes that fuel inflation. It is time to make decisions that favour our families. Finally, it is time to bring back hope for a better Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government treats inflation as if it were a natural disaster, something it cannot control, when in reality it is a policy it authored. The Liberals are not just watching prices rise; they are actively driving the spike with a tax-and-spend agenda that ignores the reality of the Canadian kitchen table. The industrial carbon tax is a prime example. It is not just another number on a ledger. It is an extra seven cents a litre today, climbing to 17¢. These taxes and red tape hit our farmers, our truckers and our food processors like a man-made storm. Canadians see the carnage at every stage, from the fuel needed to plant the seed, to the final total at the grocery checkout. This affordability crisis was made right here in Ottawa by the members on the other side of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and my Liberal colleague was speaking, at the end of his speech, about the benefits to an organization like Hatch. Who does Hatch work for? Actually, I want to ask a few more questions. When the Prime Minister travels to China, who gets a billion-dollar loan? When the Prime Minister travels to Washington, who gets an $80-billion nuclear contract? When the Prime Minister travels to Europe, who gets a multi-year lease extension? When the Prime Minister travels to India, who gets a $2.6-billion uranium deal? The answer is the same to each one of those questions: Brookfield does. Part of this agreement is preferential access for Brookfield in Indonesia's renewable energy, clean-tech and critical minerals sectors through reduced barriers. Who is the Prime Minister working for, Canada or Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the fact that the Liberals are not really acquainted with the truth at all. The member kept referring to misinformation, disinformation and falsehoods. She knows full well that the very things she described are not anything that this legislation would touch. It is already addressed in the Criminal Code. This would not change any acts of violence or criminal activity. This is about hate speech and hate expression. My religious community and constituents outside of my religious organizations have bombarded me with emails, phone calls and letters asking me not to let this bill move forward, but to oppose it as long as I possibly can. They are not in favour of it, and I would like to see it end.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Liberals respond to the arguments and the debate all day long. They keep insisting that nothing will change with respect to religious speech and religious institutions. If nothing is changing, why remove the exemption in the first place?”
“Mr. Speaker, I too am hearing overwhelmingly from my constituents the concern they have about Bill C-9 , in general on how it attacks free speech and freedom of expression, but specifically about the amendment tabled by the Liberals and the Bloc to remove the exemption for good-faith religious discussion about texts. We have already heard the former chair of the justice committee, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , cite several books of the Bible as being hate books, and we know that is blatantly false. Many schools and churches in my riding teach the Bible as it is written. What guarantee would there be under this legislation that the professors and teachers in these institutions would not be criminalized?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the petition I am presenting today, petitioners are recognizing that the Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose only medical condition is mental illness. Mental illness is treatable, recovery is possible and experts agree that it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. Expanding MAID in this way risks suggesting that some lives are beyond saving, while many Canadians still struggle to access timely and effective mental health care. The petitioners say that families and communities are concerned that people who would recover through treatment and support may instead lose their life, and they are asking the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition directed to the Government of Canada. The petitioners are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 would potentially criminalize the reading or the teaching of certain passages of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah. Petitioners want the government to take note of that, immediately withdraw the amendment and also shelve Bill C-9.”