On October 10, Philippe Couillard, whose government passed Quebec's euthanasia law in 2014, told CBC's The House:

"I'm not sure that I would have again voted for that law with the extension that we have seen in the recent years."

When even the man who got the Canada's first euthanasia law passed starts to have doubts, it is worth taking a hard look at where things stand.

Where things stand

In 2024-2025, 6,268 people were euthanized in Quebec. That is 7.9% of all deaths, the highest rate in the world. Across Canada as a whole, the rate is 5.1%.

That same year, Quebec's Commission on End-of-Life Care found 19 euthanasia deaths that broke the law. In 10 of those cases, the person did not even have a serious and incurable illness. No known penalty followed. What's more, in general, the Commission never even sees the medical records; it relies solely on the form filled out by the person who committed the euthanasia, and only an irregularity in the form triggers an investigation into these cases.

Quebec leads, Canada follows

The same pattern has repeated itself for twelve years:

• June 2014. Quebec passes its law, before the Supreme Court's Carter ruling and two years before the federal law of 2016.
• September 2019. The Truchon ruling by the Superior Court of Quebec declared the criteria of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” and “end of life” in the euthanasia law unconstitutional. In March 2021, the Canadian Parliament established “track 2,” which does not require these criteria.
• June 2023. Quebec's Bill 11 forces palliative care hospices to offer euthanasia. It also opens the door to advance requests.
• October 2024. Quebec allows advance requests without waiting for the Criminal Code to permit them, then presses Ottawa to follow.
• October 7, 2026. Ottawa follows. Justice Minister Sean Fraser announces a bill that will decriminalize advance requests in provinces that allow them.

Ottawa has dropped, thankfully, its plan to open euthanasia to people whose only condition is a mental illness. But on advance requests, the Quebec model is becoming the federal standard. A person will be able to ask today to be euthanized later, when he or she can no longer say yes or no.

What we have done

In May, in Ottawa, I denounced Quebec's world record before the press. This summer, we showed you what the Commission never sees: the medical file. Today, we are taking the next step.

If Quebec leads, Quebec is where we must apply the brakes

Every expansion starts in Quebec City, then reaches Ottawa, then the other provinces. If we slow the movement where it is born, it will lose momentum across the rest of Canada.

That is why we are launching the petition "Who Protects the Vulnerable?" It asks the Government of Quebec for:

• a moratorium on euthanasia until palliative care is available everywhere;
• a guarantee that palliative care hospices will never again be forced to give death;
• an independent review of oversight, and access to medical files for the Commission;
• fast, fully funded palliative care in every region.

Why now

Yesterday, Quebec's new cabinet was sworn in. The new ministers are inheriting their files, and nothing is set in stone yet. In a few months, priorities will be fixed and it will be much harder to be heard.

We have to strike while the iron is hot. We will deliver the signatures to the ministers concerned.

Don't live in Quebec? Sign anyway. What is decided there always ends up reaching you.

For Life,

Georges Buscemi
President, Quebec Life Coalition

P.S. On the petition page, you can print an information sheet and a signature sheet for your parish, your church or your family. Paper signatures are added to the total.

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: John Aron/Alliance Defending Freedom

Anita Meston is suing Biddick Academy, a school in Washington, England, over her dismissal for responding to students who asked her about her stance on abortion, as well as on various issues concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage.

When asked about her stance on abortion, a student asked if she was pro-choice. She replied that she was pro-life. When asked to explain, she said she held that position because she is a Christian and knows women who have regretted having abortions. Then, she redirected the class’s attention back to the lesson.

Mrs. Meston is receiving support from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal organization in this case.

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Caalition) — Photo: Sensay/Adobe Stock

According to Guelph Today, a Canadian couple is suing healthcare professionals for 14 million dollars, alleging they failed in their duty to detect a disability in their unborn child, who suffers from a rare condition: bilateral anophthalmia—in other words, the absence of eyes.

What harm, then, did the healthcare providers cause through their negligence, assuming they should have been able to diagnose the problem before birth? Among other things, the couple was unable to terminate the pregnancy because they did not know the baby had a disability. The parents, of course, argue that this child is costing them extra time and money and that they have even suffered emotional distress and trauma!

Hopefully, no competent judge will rule in favor of this couple because their claim is fundamentally flawed. The medical team is not responsible for the child's condition. The child is now two years old. The medical team is being criticized for not allowing the parents to abort the child, who is the source of their problems.

Thus, the "wrong" boils down to the child. How can a human being, born under these circumstances and otherwise planned, be considered the inflicted "wrong"? Is the mere existence of a human being considered a nuisance requiring redress?

Emotional distress? Trauma? How would the child feel if he knew his parents wanted to get rid of him and considered his existence harmful?

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: video screenshot/Kenna Daisy/TikTok

In a TikTok post, a pro-abortion advocate shares three images. The first is a positive pregnancy test with the caption 'The moment I found out'. The second is an ultrasound image of the baby with the caption "The moment I found out it was a boy". The third is a screenshot of a scheduled appointment with Planned Parenthood with the caption "The moment I made the appointment [laughs]". The post is accompanied by the caption "That's that", along with hashtags such as "pro-choice" and "abortion".

While this post does not explicitly state the reason for the abortion, the fact that it followed an ultrasound showing a baby boy suggests that the sole reason was the baby's sex.

Responses from the "Kenna Daisy" account to its followers also reflect this sentiment. To someone who shared a picture of their "beautiful baby boy", she asked, "Beautiful?" To someone who said, "Not giving birth to no one’s future abuser or rapist", she replied that she would be "ashamed" of that.

The mere fact that abortion is a source of amusement for this person should alarm any reasonable person.

Blog Post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo (modified): Freepik

The Hungarian government repealed the law that Viktor Orbán enacted to protect children from LGBT propaganda.

President Péter Magyar stated that this change would allow Hungary to comply with European Union requirements. The EU had been withholding funds intended for Hungary for years, partly because of this measure introduced by Orbán.

Magyar’s party, Tisza, holds a two-thirds majority in parliament and does not need the support of Fidesz, Orbán’s party, which opposed the repeal of the law.

Children don't need the idea to be drummed into their heads that they might be a different gender or hear about various sexual practices. So let's leave the children alone!

This is a major setback for Hungary.

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: QLC

Brian Jenkins, the organizer of "40 Days for Life" in Sherbrooke has once again been fined for his form of expression on public streets.

In 2025, he was fined during the campaign for using "sandwich boards" for commercial advertising, which is prohibited by municipal regulations.

However, the 40 Days campaign is an awareness campaign aimed at protecting the unborn child from abortion, and it is in no way commercial. Nothing is sold and no advertising for products or services is conducted. The messages on the signs invite passers-by to pray for an end to abortion, call for the protection of unborn children, and offer assistance to women through the "Pregnant and Worried?" service. As this service is free, it cannot be characterised as 'commercial'. 

Mr. Jenkins contested the initial fine, which the city ultimately withdrew in September 2026 without notifying his attorney, Olivier Séguin. Mr. Séguin is representing Mr. Jenkins with financial support from the Legal Center for Constitutional Liberties.

On October 3, 2026, Mr. Jenkins received a new fine for the same reason while holding the “40 Days” event in Sherbrooke once again. On October 8, Mr. Séguin wrote to the city’s attorney requesting that both fines be adjudicated as soon as possible. He emphasized that the uncertainty Mr. Jenkins faced regarding the bylaw was hindering his peaceful expression in the public square.

According to Mr. Séguin: "The City withdrew one ticket without notifying counsel, while police issued another for the same peaceful activity. Canadians should not have to guess whether expressing their convictions will bring another prosecution. Fair process requires clear communication, consistent enforcement, and respect for constitutional freedoms. A bylaw governing commercial advertising should not be used to silence peaceful expression.” 

One cannot help but think that the reason given for imposing the fine, as well as keeping the person concerned in a state of uncertainty, clearly indicates a form of persecution by the City against "40 Days for Life." This persecution is intended to discourage the event or limit its expression.

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo (modified): UK Government/Wikimedia Commons/Pixabay

In late September, the governor of California signed AB 1803 into law, which requires employers with more than five employees to implement “hate speech” training by January 1, 2028.

According to the law, the training must "provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on how to recognize, report, and counter remarks made in the workplace that denigrate, humiliate, or incite hatred against individuals based on protected characteristics." The characteristics in question obviously include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."

As usual, the problem with the law is that it doesn’t provide a clear definition of hate. "Woke" people often have a broad understanding of hate that includes expressing disagreement with their views.

Training materials from the Department of Civil Rights, intended for its own employees, state that deliberately using the “wrong” pronoun to refer to a transgender person is a form of “harassment,” as is objecting to a transgender coworker using restrooms not designated for their gender.

The law makes no exception for churches. I would suggest limiting the training to this Gospel passage: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and slander you" (Matthew 5:44). But will the state of California be satisfied with teaching this gospel precept?

What is "hatred" anyway? We can distinguish between feelings of hatred, which involve wishing harm upon someone, and the will to hate, which involves actively intending to harm someone. Feelings of hatred are passive: one simply feels them. However, they can become problematic when harbored. It would be foolish to condemn someone simply for feeling hatred toward another person. Besides, how could one even prove it? The difficulty with the intent to hate is that an individual’s inner motivations are hard to prove. That is why the justice system traditionally focuses on the facts, attempting to determine if harm was caused and if the acts were intentional. Furthermore, hatred is not the only motivation for harming others. A thief does not necessarily hate those he steals from or intend to harm them, yet he still causes them harm.

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: Freepik

After rejecting Bill C-218, introduced by Conservative MP Tamara Jansen, which would have prevented the expansion of euthanasia based solely on mental illness, Mark Carney’s government announced on October 7 that it would introduce a bill to indefinitely extend the ban on euthanasia based solely on mental illness. The current ban is set to expire in March 2027.

The expansion of euthanasia for mental illness alone has sparked strong public opposition across Canada. Furthermore, the committee tasked with reviewing complaints from various individuals and groups recommended suspending the expansion indefinitely.

That’s good news — if the government keeps its word.

But the Liberals, who had to back down on this issue, have announced that in the same bill to be introduced this fall, they will legalize advance requests for euthanasia for people diagnosed with a "serious illness" who may lose the capacity to consent to euthanasia.

In their cunning, the Liberals are going to create a situation where members of Parliament will not be able to vote to repeal one extension of euthanasia without approving another... Voting against it would amount to refusing to repeal the first extension.

Today, October 14, Charlie Kirk would have turned 33.

Thirteen months ago, he was shot dead on a university campus in Utah while doing what he did best: sitting under a tent and inviting anyone who disagreed with him to come and argue. He was killed saying in public what he held to be true about God, marriage and the child in the womb, and he died a martyr for moral truth.

Ten days ago in Quebec City, a dozen people got a small taste of what that kind of witness can cost.

Twelve people at prayer

On Sunday, October 4, about twelve men and women stood on the sidewalk of Laurier Boulevard, in front of Saint-Charles-Garnier church, for the Life Chain, one of 30 such gatherings in Quebec that day. Twelve is the number of the tribes of Israel and of the apostles. They held their signs and prayed in silence for an hour, as Life Chain participants do across North America every fall.

Three days earlier, a group called the Collectif Riposte Féministe (Feminist Riposte Collective) had moved its rally to that exact address, at that exact hour. Its invitation read: "Bring your anger, your signs and everything you need to make as much noise as possible!!"

They brought it. By one participant's count, between 150 and 200 counter-protesters surrounded the twelve. They stood in front of the signs so that drivers could not read them, hurled insults, and whistled into the ear of an elderly man who wears hearing aids. They blocked the boulevard, tore signs from people's hands, ripped them up and trampled them.

A FEMEN activist scratched one woman's face as she wrenched the sign from her hands, then shredded the signs one by one "with a cry of victory, to the crowd's applause." That evening, a counter-protester bragged about it on Facebook: "especially once I ripped off and tore up their anti abortion sign hihi."

Police had to be called twice. When officers arrived, they restored order within minutes and escorted the participants to their cars.

The woman with the scratched face was offered the chance to file an assault complaint, but she declined. "I came there to pray, very humbly, to defend the unborn child," she wrote. She kept praying until the end.

Read the full account here

Picture the two groups side by side: on one side, twelve people praying in silence; on the other, a crowd that had been told to bring its anger and did exactly that. Many of those women carry wounds that no one has ever helped them name, and we pray for them. But a wound gives no one the right to lay hands on a stranger who is praying.

By the Quebec Life Coalition team — Photo: video screenshot/Radio-Canada

On October 4, in front of Saint-Charles-Garnier church, 150 to 200 counter-protesters surrounded about a dozen silent Life Chain participants, tore their signs from their hands and blocked Laurier Boulevard until police arrived.

QUEBEC CITY. On Sunday, October 4, the Life Chain was held at some 30 locations across Quebec. In Beauharnois, more than 22 people, aged three months to 84 years, held signs.

In Quebec City, Quebec Life Coalition (Campagne Québec-Vie) had announced two sites on Laurier Boulevard: at the corner of Jean-De Quen Avenue, and in front of Saint-Charles-Garnier church, at number 1660.

On October 1, the Collectif Riposte Féministe announced a “CHANGE OF VENUE!!!” on Facebook. Citing “logistical reasons,” it moved its “pro-choice riposte” to the front of Saint-Charles-Garnier church at 2 p.m., the same address and time as one of the two Life Chain sites. “Bring your anger, your signs and everything you need to make as much noise as possible!!” the post read. “Let’s show that Quebec City is and will remain PRO-CHOICE!”