Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: capture d'écran viédo/ECLJ Officiel/Youtube

A French woman has testified before the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions to highlight the pressure faced by many women when they become pregnant. Although they would like to keep their babies, they are under pressure from relatives who are pushing them to have an abortion. She also condemned the lack of support that these women receive from the government when they face financial difficulties, and from the healthcare system throughout the process.

She submitted a petition to the European Parliament, calling for support for pregnant women and mothers of young children so that they can receive genuine help if they wish to keep their babies.

Charlène Bernard explains that she became pregnant at age 26. She recalls being happy to find out she was pregnant, but her partner was not. He pressured her daily to have an abortion. At her wit's end, she confided in her family doctor, who reassured her that the question wasn't whether she would keep the child, but rather, whether she would have the child with her partner. Comforted by this initial support, she went with her partner to see a psychologist at the “family planning” clinic in an effort to resolve the issue through dialogue. Unfortunately, the psychologist sided with her partner, coldly telling Charlène that the baby was nothing more than a "cluster of cells." Faced with this lack of support and the daily pressure, she eventually gave in and had the abortion.

Unsurprisingly, pro-life lawmakers congratulated the petitioner on her courage and expressed their support. As for the pro-abortion lawmakers, they merely reiterated that abortion is a "right" of women and that it must be accessible — even though that was not the subject of the speech (as if they weren’t listening). They also asserted that this access must be ensured by funding "family planning" organizations, when in fact it was precisely this so-called "family planning" that betrayed her!

Can you believe that some Quebec municipalities have recognized the rights of trees or rivers? Yet that is exactly what the municipality of Minganie did with the Magpie River in 2021, and what the municipality of Terrasse-Vaudreuil did with trees this year.

Protecting trees because they’re beautiful and because they’re useful to humans — fine. Highlighting their importance — fine. But why is it relevant to grant them “rights”? Especially when human beings — who are infinitely more precious than plants — have no recognized rights whatsoever, namely: the unborn child.

This reversal of priorities reminds us just how much the unborn child is overlooked in Canada and how much its rights are trampled upon. Even trees and rivers are said to have rights, but not the unborn child...

But precisely, we must highlight this moral inconsistency to demand the rights that are rightfully theirs — what?! Trees are supposed to have rights, but not the unborn child?

I therefore invite you to sign our petition, in which we call on the Parliament of Canada to pass a law protecting the lives of unborn children.

If you do not live in Canada, we invite you to share this petition with those around you. The more people who know about it, the greater its impact will be.

The culture of death surrounds us and is casting its shadow ever wider. France recently passed a law legalizing euthanasia. Some in Quebec are proposing to offer assisted suicide as a way to combat suicide... Meanwhile, in the United States, some hospitals no longer limit themselves to harvesting vital organs from people deemed “brain dead,” but have gone so far as to conduct experiments on some of them.

Fortunately, in Poland, President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill that would have authorized a form of civil union for same-sex couples. The president stated: “I do not agree with the backdoor introduction of civil partnerships intended to replace or substitute for the institution of marriage.”

In the United States, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill establishing the right for minors who have undergone gender transition, as well as their parents, to sue clinics, hospitals, doctors, and others involved in the transition to seek compensation.

That said, don’t forget to sign the petition for the rights of unborn children.

Pour la Vie,
Augustin Hamilton

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

"Mental health: offering medical assistance in dying to prevent suicide" is the title of an opinion piece published in Le Soleil. The paradox it presents would be laughable were it not for the fact that this is an extremely serious matter.

Just think about it: proposing death to prevent people from killing themselves! Offering suicide to prevent suicide...

This is the proposal of Dr Chantal Descoteaux and Dr Claude Gagnon, who are thankfully currently retired. Their piece is riddled with contradictions from start to finish.

It is said that people who take their own lives are either experiencing a temporary crisis or have been receiving long-term healthcare and have tried all the suggested solutions. Driven by despair, they chose to end their lives. The doctors then go on to say, "Turning a blind eye to this reality does not save any lives." A strange line of thinking, since how exactly does killing suicidal people save lives?

While it is true that this would reduce suicide rates, since assisted suicide is not counted as a suicide, this is a fundamental error since in both cases the person wishes to end their own life.

Canada protects trees.
Now protect preborn children.

On June 9, 2026, the council of Terrasse-Vaudreuil, a town of roughly 2,000 people west of Montreal, voted unanimously to recognize that trees have the right to live, to grow and to regenerate. It is the first municipality in Canada, and by the organizers' own account the first in the world, to sign the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Tree.

The mayor, Michel Bourdeau, explained the decision in words worth reading twice. A tree, he said, is like a human being. It breathes. It lives. It needs water. It protects us.

Every one of those sentences is true of a child in the womb.

The tree now has rights in Terrasse-Vaudreuil. The child has none. Not there, not anywhere in Canada, at any stage of pregnancy, and not since 1988.

Takes about thirty seconds. Goal: 1,000 signatures.

With three months to go before the provincial elections in Quebec, the political parties will be talking to us about access to daycare, says Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard, a researcher at the Cardus Institute.

Indeed, the birth rate is an issue that politicians are finally deigning to address (or at least, pretending to). The CAQ, for example, has already promised to add 37,000 daycare places.

However, Beauregard, an essayist often described as a disciple of Mathieu Bock-Côté, explains that Quebec’s subsidized daycare system is “neither universal nor equitable.”

In his study, conducted for the Cardus Institute, Mr. Beauregard notes that the system has never managed to fulfill its promise of providing a daycare spot for every child. Even today, more than 30,000 children are on a waiting list for a spot (though, to be fair, these children would likely prefer to stay with their parents).

The system is unable to meet demand due to a shortage of trained staff, who, as of 2023, accounted for only 46% of childcare providers, Beauregard reports.

Furthermore, Beauregard points out that government funding varies depending on the child care option chosen by parents. In CPEs, the government subsidizes each child’s place at a rate of $70 per day. In a non-subsidized daycare center, the place is subsidized at $33 per day, while there is no assistance for parents who arrange childcare elsewhere or who care for their children themselves.

Beauregard rightly points out that the government subsidizes work by reducing the cost of childcare spots, but does not encourage time spent with family. Yet, he writes, polls show that parents in Quebec would prefer to work less so they could spend more time with their families. He also notes that 50% of Quebecers would prefer a system where funding went directly to parents.

Finally, Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard proposes adopting a program similar to Finland’s, where the government — in addition to subsidizing daycare centers — provides assistance to parents who want to care for their children themselves, or offers a subsidy to parents who would like to work three or four days a week so they can care for their children under the age of three.

Let’s hope that his message is heard in the corridors of power and put into practice. In fact, it’s astonishing that we’ve persisted in maintaining a system with so many flaws, the most obvious of which is that it leaves out parents who care themselves for their children, as if they didn’t exist or shouldn’t exist.

The family is at the heart of our concerns, because without the family, no society can survive.

For Life,
Augustin Hamilton

Today is Canada Day, and this date is a good opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of country it has become.

Let us introduce you to Joey.

Joey St-Jean is 24 years old. He’s perfectly sane, with plans and dreams. Living with spinal muscular atrophy, he needs assistance with daily activities and has been living in residential care for four years — currently in a long-term care facility in Montreal. There, in his own words, he feels “like a number.” For a year, he searched for a supervised apartment where he could live with dignity. He even raised $22,000 through crowdfunding. To no avail: such housing is virtually nonexistent.

Discouraged, he has just filed a request for euthanasia, because the system has left him on his own.

And Joey is not an isolated case. This should be a cause for concern for us today.

Since euthanasia was legalized in the country in 2016 — and then expanded in 2021 to include people who are not at the end of life — we have seen a proliferation of shameful stories. Poor people asking to die because they lack housing. Sick people asking to die because they lack access to the care they need. And, as we recall, even veterans to whom a Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) official offered euthanasia while they were asking for help. Paralympian Christine Gauthier, who had been waiting five years for a simple ramp for her wheelchair, told members of Parliament: she was being offered death, but not the tools she needed to live.

This is the truth that this day should remind us of. When a country condemns to death those it should be caring for, housing, and supporting, that is not progress. It is a failure. A stain on its honor. And a stain can and must be erased.

So here’s what we’re asking of you today.

First, let’s not look away. Share Joey’s story with those around you. Let’s not let it be forgotten.

Next, if you can help in a practical way: if you, or someone you know, have a concrete lead (suitable housing, a contact, a resource), write to us at [email protected]. We’ll try to put you in touch.

Finally, let’s stay engaged and make our voices heard by our elected officials: we must help Joey live, not die. The fight for a society that chooses to care for people rather than eliminate them is our fight, every day. Your support for QLC makes this possible.

Joey, if he’s reading this, needs to know one thing: he’s not just a number, he’s not alone, and there are people ready to fight so that he can live.

With you for life,
The Quebec Life Coalition team

Blog post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: Serhii/Adobe Stock

Joey St-Jean has been in a long-term care facility for four years. He suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness and loss of control. He is severely disabled and needs assistance with daily tasks.

Before moving into the facility, he lived with his grandparents. "Before moving into the facility, I was happy, motivated, and determined. I had plans for my life, my education, and my career. I had dreams", he told La Presse.

However, placed in an "intermediate care facility", he does not feel happy there. The staff does not have time to tailor care to patients’ preferences. "We have to constantly adapt to the staff because they don't take the time to talk with us about our situation, preferences, and needs."

In this situation, he feels dehumanised and alone. "I feel like a number. I don’t feel loved, and I don’t feel alive".

In an attempt to escape this situation, Joey launched a fundraising campaign on GoFundMe, managing to raise $22,000. Despite this, his efforts to pay for an apartment outside the government system and hire someone to care for him have been unsuccessful.

Blog Post by Augustin Hamilton (Quebec Life Coalition) — Photo: Pixel-Shot/Adobe Stock

All Quebec politicians, from the CAQ to the QS (yes, even the QS!) and including the Liberals, are expressing a willingness to tackle the current falling birth rate. Quebec’s total fertility rate was 1.36 children per woman in 2025, which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Their approach is similar to one promoted by University of Sherbrooke academics, such as Sophie Mathieu, a lecturer at the School of Applied Politics. She aims to help families have as many children as they want. Currently, there is a gap between the number of children families want and the number they actually have.

Mrs. Mathieu lists several obstacles to fulfilling this desire, including difficulty balancing work and family life, "eco-anxiety", the housing crisis, and the shortage of subsidized childcare.

The solution to "eco-anxiety" is simple: the media just need to stop bombarding the public with apocalyptic climate messages.
Work-life balance and the shortage of daycare spots are related issues that the government could easily address in some cases. For example, they could provide support to mothers who want to raise their young children themselves.

But what did I just mention? Mrs. Mathieu says that the issue of birth rates "strikes a sensitive chord, that of gender equality." She says that people in Quebec (or rather, feminists) would prefer to talk about "work-life balance" than "birth rate policy." This reluctance to use such a harmless term is astonishing!