Marilyn Gladu
Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about affordability measures and the major ongoing projects. Could he perhaps speak to the government's responsiveness to the tariff threat that faces us in the section 232 tariff response, the aluminum tariff response, etc.?”
“Not only has our government provided relief to get them through, such as $1 billion from the BDC and another $500 million in tariff relief funds, which were responsibly brought to the table when these tariffs arrived, but we are also seeing that people can pivot into the defence industry.”
“As members may know, one of the apprentices we met actually won a gold medal in Ontario for the welding competition and is on his way to nationals, so I send a shout‑out to Ryan Beattie for that. Making sure that our young people have well‑paying jobs is just one of the things we need to do.”
“I do not know if members saw the announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about food security and a huge investment of $3 billion to try to make sure that we can get food prices down and that we can produce more of our food supply domestically and become less dependent on others in the world.”
“This is really good news, because for a while, foreign investment was fleeing the country, so to have it returning, as well as to have the highest investment per capita, is another positive indicator. I am personally quite proud of the Prime Minister 's efforts to diversify our trade.”
“In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail.”
The complete record
Every one of 293 lines we hold for Marilyn Gladu, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Decisions made in divorce proceedings affect housing stability, mental health, education and long-term outcomes for children. When our courts miss warning signs or fail to properly assess the risk, these consequences show up in many forms. They show up in children struggling at school with anxiety and trauma that can follow them into adulthood, and in families that lose faith in the justice system that is meant to protect them. That is why it is so important that this legislation encourages courts to get these decisions right. Clearer guidance on coercive control, stronger recognition of children's experiences and a more careful approach to highly contested concepts like parental alienation all help move family law towards decisions that are evidence-based and centred on safety.”
“When courts act on assumptions instead of evidence, children can be placed back into unsafe situations, causing a generational cycle of distrust in the system. However, parental alienation is not well understood. It was very helpful, when trying to get the courts to recognize coercive control, to provide a list of the types of behaviours that would be admissible to show that pattern of behaviour. I think the same is true for parental alienation. This is one area of the bill that may need some clarification or help in order to ensure that people adequately understand how to recognize true parental alienation when it is occurring. One of the strongest messages alluded to at committee was that family law does not operate in a vacuum.”
“In some cases, those allegations were accepted without proper scrutiny, and children were removed from a safe parent as a result. Bill C-223 does not dismiss the possibility of alienating behaviours, but it rejects the idea that alienation should be assumed or used to outweigh evidence of family violence. It requires courts to look at the full context, the patterns of behaviour, power imbalances, and the children's lived experience before reaching possibly devastating conclusions. That balance matters. Protecting children requires recognizing both the real harm caused by true alienation and the very real danger of using alienation claims to silence abuse or dismiss children's fears. Getting this wrong has serious consequences.”
“Deliberately undermining a child's relationship with a loving, safe parent is harmful. It causes long-term emotional damage to children, and when that happens, courts must be able to recognize it and respond appropriately. No child should be used as a pawn in a custody dispute, and no parent should be cut out of their child's life without good reason. However, our committee also heard clear evidence that allegations of parental alienation have too often been misused in cases involving domestic violence and coercive control. Survivors told us that when they raised legitimate safety concerns, they were accused of manipulating their children simply because the child expressed fear or resistance towards the abusive parent.”
“Members may remember that Keira's law followed the tragic death of Keira Kagan, who was killed by her father after her mother had repeatedly raised concerns about coercive control and family violence that were not adequately recognized in family court. Keira's law requires judges to receive training on intimate partner violence and coercive control. That is an important step, but training alone is not enough. Bill C-223 would build on that work by providing clearer guidance in the Divorce Act so that courts are better equipped to prioritize child safety and recognize warning signs when making custody and parenting decisions. (1845) I would like to spend a bit more time on the issue of parental alienation, because it is important that everyone understands.”
“Children can easily be intimidated by one parent or another, so the measures in this bill would allow written testimony or video interviews, which would prevent the child from being unduly traumatized by the judicial process or being intimidated by one parent or another. Finally, the bill would bring greater clarity to how parental alienation claims are assessed, ensuring that child safety and the evidence of family violence remain the priority. The House has already acknowledged that our systems have failed children in the past. I had conversations with Pam Damoff, a former member of Parliament who was a great advocate, talking about Keira's law and what was needed to follow up on that.”
“Second, the bill would give courts clearer direction on how coercive control affects parenting and child safety. Coercive control is often not visible or physical but a pattern of behaviour, of things that sometimes are difficult to see. Patterns of intimidation, isolation, threats, manipulation and financial control are things that tend to continue long after separation, and the bill would make it clear that they must be taken seriously. Third, Bill C-223 would ensure that children's voices are heard through written evidence or in camera interviews with appropriate safeguards. Children are not property to be divided, and their views should not be dismissed simply because they are inconvenient.”
“Survivors told us that their concerns were minimized, that abuse was treated as a private conflict or that it was dismissed entirely because there was no police report or visible injury. In some cases, protective parents were even accused of alienating their children for raising legitimate safety concerns. Bill C-223 seeks to address these failures by strengthening and amending the Divorce Act so that courts are better equipped to recognize coercive control and parental alienation. I would like to briefly outline exactly what the amendments aim to do. First, the bill would require family law lawyers to assess the risk of family violence and coercive control when representing a client in a divorce, and to take steps to put a safety plan in place where risks exist.”
“These recommendations come directly from survivors, experts and frontline organizations across our country. Therefore, I allow their testimony to inform my perspective as I speak to this legislation today. Coercive control comes in many forms. It can include constant monitoring, threats, financial control, isolating someone from friends or family, using the legal system to intimidate a former partner and even using the children as leverage to maintain power and control, which is especially prevalent in divorce cases. As we heard, this behaviour often does not stop after separation; in many cases, it only escalates further. Too often, family courts are asked to make decisions without fully recognizing these patterns.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-223 , the keeping children safe act. I want to extend my thanks to the member for Hamilton Mountain for her work on this very important issue. As the chair of the status of women committee, I heard extensive testimony on coercive control, parental alienation and family violence in Canada. In 2025, our committee released a report recognizing coercive control as a serious form of intimate partner violence, involving repeated psychological abuse, intimidation, stalking, isolation, manipulation, financial control and even cruelty to family pets, all of which undermine the autonomy, safety and well-being of women and children. The report did not just identify the problem but made 16 clear recommendations to address them.”
“Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today from constituents who are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 passed at the justice committee. The amendment would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada, allowing the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts, and resulting in punishment of up to two years in prison. Petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into their faith.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals take thousands of dollars from Canadians; they return a pittance. Canadians are not fooled. Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as in the U.S. and twice as fast since the Prime Minister took office. Grocery prices are up 5%, and his response to the cost of living crisis is to tell Canadians to sacrifice more. Canadians have sacrificed enough. With the ever-increasing cost to eat and heat, there is little left for Canadians to give up. When will the government finally stop asking families to sacrifice and commit to legislation today to make life affordable for hard-working Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, food inflation is up 6.2%, the highest in the G7. A family now pays more than $17,000 a year for food, and 2.2 million people are lined up at food banks every month, thanks to the Liberals' industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, adding up to about 17¢ a litre, which is hitting farmers, truckers and food prices. Conservatives are ready to fast-track legislation to reverse these devastating impacts. Will the Liberals immediately introduce a bill to eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax to boost grocery competition and cut red tape for our farmers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member opposite cannot see the action plan that is the Canada sovereignty plan. He said slogans were not enough. Does he believe that empty words without action are enough? That is all we have seen from the Liberal government.”
“Madam Speaker, all of the environmental assessments and the consultations with indigenous peoples have been completed for the Northern Gateway pipeline. We could start that project today and have the pipeline built in about three years. I think the Liberals lack political will. The Liberals are saying one thing to Alberta and another to British Columbia. I think that Canadians want to know whether the Liberals support the pipeline project, yes or no.”
“Madam Speaker, I love the passion of my colleague. He is from B.C. He is representing people in B.C., most of whom want to see this pipeline get done. Definitely, I think we need these jobs in Canada at this point. The Liberals will tell us that the jobs were created, but they are part-time jobs. They are, basically, Christmas retail jobs. We need the kinds of jobs we would get from the pipeline and all of the other projects I talked about. We need to build, build, build.”
“Madam Speaker, there can be no doubt that the Conservatives want to build a pipeline. We want to build a pipeline to the west. However, one interesting thing in this MOU is that the Liberals are willing to lift the exemption on the tanker ban. Let us think about the tanker ban. Right now, the only people who cannot have oil tankers are Canadians. The U.S. has three refineries right in that area that are shipping tankers all the time, so it is just a punishment on us. We should not have to wait two years to lift that exemption. We could do that today.”
“We are tired of the hypocrisy, and we are tired of hearing them talk out of both sides of their mouth, so the official opposition today is going to force them to say, “Yes, we want a pipeline,” or “No, we do not want a pipeline.” Are the Liberals serious, or are they not? We, on this side of the House, do want to expand oil and gas. We believe that building a pipeline to get our oil to Asian markets will increase revenue by $30 billion. We could use that. The country needs it. Canadians need it.”
“We have lost 3,000 jobs in the auto sector and 1,000 steelworker jobs, and 34 paper mills have closed, all at Christmas time. The future of our social safety net is at risk. We have an increase in poverty in this country, homeless encampments, food bank lineups, and seniors who cannot afford to eat and heat, yet there is still a doubt as to whether anything is going to happen here. Even with this MOU, they are talking about how, in seven months, they will have a consultation to start something in two years. Well, that does not sound like build, build, build at unimaginable speeds. That sounds like zero progress or lots of delays and negative acceleration. What are the Liberals waiting for?”
“The people who pay the industrial carbon tax just pass the cost on to the consumer, so I do not agree, but in order to get the pipeline approved, Alberta has said yes to that. Now, there is resistance rising up already, as there always will be. If we want to have 100% of Canadians, indigenous people and B.C. always give their consent to everything, we will never build anything. That is why, according to the law, the power to build something that goes between provinces is exclusively the Prime Minister 's power. He can do this, especially with the exemptions that Bill C-5 allows. He has the ability to do it if he has the will to do it, and that is what the debate is about today: Does he really have the will, or is it all smoke and mirrors, just another bait and switch? We know there is a lot at stake.”
“We talk about the deficit, and we talk about its inflationary effect and how it is going to burden generations in the future. There is a solution to that, which is to increase revenue so that we can actually afford the social services and so that we can pay down this deficit, yet we said no to all of those things. It also would have helped the planet. LNG replacing heavy oil and coal cuts the carbon footprint by a factor of four, and that is significant. In terms of this MOU, there are lots of things in it, such as getting rid of the clean electricity regulation and getting rid of the emissions cap. They did agree to raise the industrial carbon tax, which I am not a fan of. I think that just increases the cost of everything.”
“This government has been here eight months, and it has not built anything. In fact, the things it has announced are things that were already in the pipeline. I am sorry about the pun, but they were already on the way. We had offers to give our LNG to other countries. Germany wanted us to provide it with LNG so that it could get off heavy oil and coal from Russia. It was going to pay us $60 billion a year, but we said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal. Then Japan came and wanted to give us $60 billion a year for our LNG, but again, we said there was no business case, and Qatar took that deal. Then the Netherlands came and offered us $60 billion a year for our LNG, but the Saudis took that deal, because we did not. Can members imagine having $180 billion a year more revenue into the country?”
“Then the Prime Minister had to ask the Conservatives to support him to put across Bill C-5 , which allows them to exempt any project in the national interest from all of the horrible legislation that the Liberals put in place over the last 10 years, including the tanker ban, the “no more pipelines” bill, the industrial emissions cap and all of these kinds of things that have discouraged the kind of prosperity that oil and gas has brought to Canada and the money that we need in order to keep supporting systems that are struggling, like our health care system. (1250) If we look at what could be done, what we could build that is unimaginable, at speeds never before seen, well, we could be like Germany, which permitted and built an LNG terminal in 194 days, or about seven months.”
“Either they do or they do not, and the rest of it is just word salad. Now, how did the Liberals cancel all these previous projects? They did it through regulations that take six years to get a project approved and cost billions of dollars. There was Bill C-69 , the “no more pipelines” bill. We warned the Liberals for 10 years that this was going to be disastrous, that foreign investors would leave and that nothing would get built, and here we are.”
“The motion states: That the House: (a) take note of the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Alberta of November 27, 2025; and (b) support the construction of one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen from a strategic deepwater port on the British Columbia coast to reach Asian markets, including through an appropriate adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous peoples. All day, during the debate, we have had excuse after excuse. This is the Liberals' MOU. It is their language, and they are saying, “We really cannot support the motion, because the Conservatives did not put the whole entirety of the MOU in here.” Well, for Canadians, the question is simple to answer: Do they want to build a pipeline, yes or no?”
“People cannot believe that there is sincerity there, especially when there is a different message being sent to B.C. from the one being sent to Alberta and to the rest of the country. The Liberals are saying to the B.C. folks, “Do not worry about it. It is never really going to be built. There is a lot that has to happen for it to go on.” To everyone else, it looks like they are building a pipeline. That is why we are here. We have brought the language from the MOU.”
“When he now comes and says that the Liberals are going to build the unimaginable at speeds we have never seen before, and that the government now has an MOU with Alberta to build a pipeline to take our oil to the west, we can understand why Canadians are a bit skeptical. Why the flip-flop? Is it ever really going to happen? We know there is huge division already within the Liberal caucus. The climate caucus is saying that this is a total violation of the climate plan that the Liberals had and of the fact that they said, even in the budget, that they would not subsidize fossil fuels anymore. We had the convicted felon, the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, step down from his position because he saw the total flip-flop.”
“I am going to start there, and then I am going to say, “I love pipelines.” I love pipelines not just because I am a Conservative. I love pipelines because, as an engineer, I have built pipelines and operated pipelines, and because pipelines are the key to prosperity and for Canadians to have the social services that we all value so much. That is why I am happy to rise today and speak to this motion. This motion is important. Basically, we know that in the past, the Liberals cancelled pipelines. They cancelled the northern gateway pipeline, and they cancelled the energy east pipeline. They cancelled 18 LNG projects that were on the books in 2015 when I was elected. We know that at the time, the current Prime Minister actually testified at the industry committee that he was supportive of cancelling northern gateway.”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and to speak to our opposition day motion. I will be sharing my time with the great member for North Island—Powell River . It is particularly significant that I am speaking today because, for those who do not know, oil was first discovered in North America in my riding. That is right. In Oil Springs, in 1861, the Fairbanks bought the property, there was a huge gusher, and it was the start of the oil industry in North America. The precursor to Imperial Oil was Standard Oil. The companies trucked that oil from Oil Springs right to Standard Oil, which became Imperial Oil. They took the technology developed in my riding to 86 countries. There is the Oil Museum of Canada located in Oil Springs, where people can see all this amazing technology and where it all began.”
“Madam Speaker, this is a very simple debate. In the past, the Liberals have cancelled pipelines. Now the Prime Minister is saying that he signed this memorandum of understanding to build a pipeline to the west. Canadians sense the hypocrisy. Do the Liberals support building a pipeline to the west, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, I agree that we should not be sending our money to the United States. However, we obviously need a pipeline in western Canada and another one in eastern Canada. Furthermore, 60% of Quebeckers support the idea of a pipeline project. Will the Bloc Québécois support the construction of an eastern pipeline, particularly in Quebec?”
“Madam Speaker, the northern gateway pipeline had all of the environmental assessments and had all of the indigenous consultation, and it was cancelled under Justin Trudeau. The government asked Conservatives to support Bill C-5 so that it could exempt projects in the national interest from all the terrible laws that it passed in the last 10 years, and we did support that. Now, the minister has a pipeline that meets all of the criteria he has been talking about in his speech. Does he want to build the pipeline, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Gender-Based Violence and Femicides in Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. Femicides are up; a woman in Canada dies every other day. We do need to address this national crisis, and the recommendations would go a long way to helping that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the bill. Honestly, it could not have come at a better time, when sexual assault is up 76% in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee, and we heard disturbing testimony that half the people who are sexually assaulted do not even get a police report. Of the ones who do get a police report, 5% go to court, and only 1% actually get a conviction. The sentence is measured in an average of months, not years. Are there measures the member would like to see the courts implement in terms of the maximum sentence, along with consecutive sentencing?”
“Mr. Speaker, we talk about these hidden taxes on food and, constantly from the Liberal bench, we hear they are imaginary. I know that in my riding, I see the cost of food going up and I see the real impact. Does the member think these taxes are imaginary?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, but does he understand that it is already illegal to make statements that incite violence? It is already illegal. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and will violate the rights and freedoms of 27 million Canadians. Does my colleague understand that?”
“Madam Speaker, the government's promise was that it was going to sell off land so it could build the affordable housing we are missing because of massive immigration that did not match the supply of housing. Here we go. We see, again, that the government is giving money. Who is getting rich? That is always the question with the Liberals. It is corruption. It is Brookfield. The Prime Minister is getting rich. I am not certain exactly which Liberal insider is getting rich on this one.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I do not support the Pathways Alliance project, because I think that all of the companies involved are simply looking to become very wealthy, and Brookfield is one of them. I do not believe that this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We need to build a pipeline, and we need to sell our oil around the world. That is the right response.”
“Madam Speaker, I certainly recall the member opposite mocking this side of the House for 10 years on the carbon tax. Then we noticed, during the election, the price of gasoline start to fall. What did the Liberals do afterwards? They returned and put an industrial carbon tax in place, the supposed new fuel standard that increased the cost of gasoline 17% and continues to increase the amount needed to grow the food, move the food and sell the food, so they are driving inflation. If we look at this in comparison with our neighbours to the south, food prices here are going up 40% faster than those in the U.S. because of the government's policies.”
“Public sector spending is up, and the cost of consultants is up. We know this is going to cause the cost of everything to go up. The government should instead be focusing on creating a competitive environment, on R and D, on reducing regulations, on getting certainty so investors will come invest here in Canada, and on getting out of the way. The government says it is going to build at rates never before seen, but sadly we have seen zero before. We do not need to see it again.”
“With that said, here are some things I wish were in the budget. The first is something for seniors. In my riding, that is over half the population. We have an aging population in our country, but there is just a reannouncement of the new horizons program. How about an increase to OAS and GIS? How about something for young people? There was just a small amount for training, after the government cancelled the apprenticeship program. We need more people in the trades. I wish the government had actually put something in the budget to build houses and to buy the F-35s, as well as money for jails for all the criminals, including repeat offenders and violent people out on the streets. I will wrap up by talking about spending less to invest more. The government is actually spending more.”
“Those are not government assets; those are the assets of Canadians. Canadians and employers have paid into that program. I really worry that when the government gets its hands on something like that, it is going to spend it, as it does with everything else. I also want to highlight some of the frivolous spending I still see happening. It is happening with consultants. Even though the government said it was going to try to spend less, it is spending more. The government is still spending money on what I would call frivolous items, such as $150 million for gender awareness in other countries, $150 million to UNRWA that has been proven to be helping Hamas build tunnels and $500 million for the European Space Centre, 50% of which is owned by Brookfield. We are seeing lots of good deals for Brookfield and not too many good deals for Canadians.”
“The government has shown it is terrible at major projects. It took the $4.5-billion Kinder Morgan pipeline and delivered it for $30 billion, two years late. That is the kind of record the government has. It does not need more bureaucracy. Then there is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The government decided to give it another $10 billion. It is a bank that took $35 billion from municipalities and has not really built many projects. In fact last year it spent $4 million building projects, $38 million on salaries and $9 million on bonuses, and it had $204 million in losses. Why would the government put more money into this kind of failing mechanism? Another thing I was unhappy to see in the budget is that the government has put our Canada pension plan in the asset part of the government.”
“The other thing I am not happy about is that we are going to build, build, build, but that what we are really building in the budget is bureaucracy. Instead of buying F-35s, we will build a defence procurement bureaucracy. We do not need that; we need to buy things that are going to help our NATO allies and put us in a place where we can defend our sovereignty. We are also building a fourth bureaucracy. How many billions of dollars have we wasted creating housing bureaucracies that do not result in building houses? Housing starts are down again. I do not like that. With respect to the major projects bureaucracy, I am a fan of building major projects, but the Liberals have not built a major project. There have been a lot of announcements about projects that were already under way, and now the Liberals are building a huge bureaucracy.”
“Now I will move on to the things I wish were not in the budget. (1125) Let us start with the $78-billion deficit. I do not know how the Liberals cannot understand that every time this kind of deficit spending is put into a budget, it pours fuel on the inflationary fire and drives up the cost of absolutely everything. People simply cannot afford that. It also results in having to pay a lot more to service the debt. We will be paying $100 billion a year to service just the interest on the debt. It is like lighting up that money every year. Let us think about it. That is more money than we put into our health transfers. Now think of what could be done if we were not paying off our debt, if we actually had some fiscal prudence.”
“Our priority in Sarnia–Lambton is to build affordable housing; this is the infrastructure we need, so I will be petitioning the minister to try to get some of the funding we need in our riding. That was one thing I was glad to see. The other thing I would say I was glad to see is $600 million of stable funding for the status of women. If we look at the current situation in our country, which is especially important during the 16 days of activism for battling gender-based violence and as we approach the anniversary of the École polytechnique murders, we see that under the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, every other day there is a femicide in our country. Sexual assault is up 76%. Women make up about half the population, so absolutely there should be a priority on addressing that. I am happy to see some stable funding for it.”
“Now I will talk about the things I am glad were in the budget. The first thing I am going to say, and these are probably the only nice comments I am going to make today, is about the building communities fund: $50 billion over five years for a number of things that are supposed to build infrastructure to get us to build affordable housing. That will be really important in my riding. For example, we need storm sewer upgrades in Brooke-Alvinston; stormwater upgrades in Warwick, Watford and Arkona; potable water for Kettle & Stony Point First Nation; a stormwater system expansion in Lambton Shores; and waste water upgrades in St. Clair Township and for Point Edward.”
“However, if women really have a right to choose, then some of them are going to choose to have babies, and they are going to need pregnancy crisis centre supports. Therefore I am glad to see that recommendation 429 did not make it into the budget. The other thing I am glad we did not see a lot of in the budget is the huge spending we have been doing. Last year, $20 billion went to foreign nations for what I would consider to be frivolous and ideological stupidity: gender-just rice, for example. There was also $4 million sent off to Lebanon for multigender accessibility. Honestly, there are Canadians here in this country who are lined up at food banks and cannot afford to live. The priority has to be for Canadians, so I am glad to see that none of those things I mentioned made it into the budget.”
“However, it is part of a continuing war on people of faith in this country, as we see playing out right now in Bill C-9 , in which the government is co-operating with the Bloc to remove the protections, under the Criminal Code with respect to hate speech, for people of faith to be able to express themselves and read their scriptures. I do not really know where the Liberal government thinks it is going with this, as 65% of Canadians are people of faith. To try to remove their charter rights to freedom of religion seems counterproductive. I hope the government will rethink that, but I was really glad not to see it show up in the budget. With respect to revoking the charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres, I will say that the Liberals are always talking about a woman's right to choose.”
“The second thing I am glad not to see in the budget is two of the recommendations that came from the finance committee: recommendation 430, which would have revoked charitable status for faith-based organizations; and recommendation 429, which would have revoked charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres. There is no way the government could afford to provide the service and compassion that faith-based organizations are providing across the country, so I am really glad to not see recommendation 430 in the budget. I am just concerned that it was even supported by the Liberals to come forward from the finance committee.”