Is Your Representative Supporting Your Values?

Find out how they voted on important bills that were passed through Parliament below:

Bill C-7 (Amendments to original Euthanasia laws removed safeguards for vulnerable citizens)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,

(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;

(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;

(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;

(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and

(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.


See how your MP voted for Bill C-7 at the 3rd Reading Vote

Bill C-233 (law restricting Sex Selective Abortions)

Voted Down at 2nd reading.

Sex Selective Abortion Act, amends the Criminal Code, making it an offence for a medical practitioner to perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought solely on the grounds of the child’s genetic sex. It also requires the Minister of Health, after consultation with representatives of the provincial governments responsible for health, to establish guidelines respecting information provided by a medical practitioner in relation to a request for an abortion.

See how your MP voted for Bill C-233 at the 2nd Reading Vote

Bill C-225 – Cassie & Molly’s Law (Additional protections in law for unborn children and their mothers)

Voted Down at 1st reading.

Cassandra Kaake or ‘Cassie’ is who the bill was named for because she was seven months pregnant when she was found dead at the scene of an arson in Windsor, Ont. in 2014.

Within a very short period of time from her death, Cassandra would have given birth to her baby and had planned to call her Molly.

On the day Cassandra was murdered, she had gone out and was planning her baby shower.  When she returned home, a struggle ensued, and Cassandra was strangled until she was unconscious.

It was reported that her throat had been slit, her fingertips were cut off and her body was doused in gasoline before the house was set on fire.

The ‘Cassie and Molly’s Law’ bill, called for an amendment in law that would, “make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a pre-born child during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother.”

At the very first reading of the bill a majority of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons voted down this bill that would have helped protect women and unborn babies like Cassie and Molly who are more vulnerable to violent assault and who are in need additional protections in law.

See how your MP voted for Bill C-225 at the 1st Reading Vote

Bill C-6 – (Ban on so called ‘Conversion Therapy’)

PASSED at 3rd reading.

The Federal Liberal government intends to criminalize a practice called “conversion therapy.” However, the definition of “conversion therapy” they use is unlike the definitions used by governmental bodies and professional organizations anywhere in the world. Their definition is so broad, their bill, Bill C-6, ends up banning helpful counseling even consenting adults and minors would freely choose.

The vague definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6 will result in discrimination against LGBTQ Canadians. The specific wording the Canadian government uses defines “conversion therapy” as both a ban on orientation change OR a reduction or repression of non-heterosexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender identity. 

The way this is worded means counseling to reduce non-heterosexual behaviour, even if a client does not want to change their orientation, would be criminalized. Other than the Canadian government, only seven Canadian municipal governments and the government of Quebec, use this same definition. No other group uses a similar definition.

Because the Canadian definition does not use similar language but instead lists behavioural counseling separately from orientation change, the Canadian definition would ban any kind of counseling or support that LGBTQ Canadians may seek to simply reduce behaviours or attractions they do not want to engage in.

Youth under 18 would be denied support unless the counseling or therapy affirms their non-heterosexual behaviour or attractions or gender identity and expression. This means even if a 16-year-old wants to “reduce” non-heterosexual porn use, she would be prevented from getting that counseling, free or paid because of this ban on behavioural counseling.  Moreover, the Bill would permit five-year-olds to change their gender identity or gender expression, without their parents’ knowledge or support.
For happily married citizens who find themselves attracted to a co-worker or classmate it is likely the citizens would seek counseling to help reduce that attraction.  If Bill C-6 is passed, that counselor could only help the person they are attracted to the opposite gender. If they are attracted to the same gender, counselors could no longer support reducing your unwanted attractions. This is how a broad definition of “conversion therapy” will directly discriminate against LGBTQ Canadians and those who want to support them. 

Though adults would still be able to get unpaid counseling, they would have a hard time finding counseling because advertising the service would be criminal. For those under 18, including mature minors, they will not have the option of seeking any counseling to reduce their unwanted attractions or behaviour if it is non-heterosexual and even if they do not seek to change their orientation. 

The ban would affect public advertisements but also private conversations where this kind of support is “promoted.” This would be a blatant attack against the Charter Rights of LGBTQ Canadians, including freedom of speech, assembly and religion. 

See how your MP voted on Bill C-6 at the 3rd Reading Vote

Opposition Day Motion (Canada Summer Jobs)

Voted Down.

The Federal Liberal Government introduced an attestation to the application for the Canada Summer Jobs Grant Program funding. The new application required applicants to check a box, affirming support for legal abortion, among other things. 

Some organizations refused to check the box. Some refused and explained themselves. Some checked the box but added a qualifying statement. At least one Christian charity checked the attestation and, without modifying the statement, attached their own statement of faith (a variation on the Apostles’ Creed) to the application. They were denied funding.

In response to the introduction of the attestation on the application, the Official Opposition Party in the House of Commons challenged this move by the government by introducing the following motion to be voted on.  The motion stated:

“That, in the opinion of the House, organizations that engage in non-political non-activist work, such as feeding the homeless, helping refugees, and giving kids an opportunity to go to camp, should be able to access Canada Summer Jobs funding regardless of their private convictions and regardless of whether or not they choose to sign the application attestation.”

The motion was silent on political and activist activities which defend our pre-born children and the Christian perspective of sexuality. However, the motion was welcome by many because it defended other especially important work Christians are doing across this country. 

The motion was also a direct challenge against the Federal Liberal government’s efforts to use public money to demand conformity to its radical secular ideology.

The attestation, while claiming to respect the Charter, ignored its fundamental freedoms: religion and conscience, expression, and association.  The Liberal government argued that the attestation doesn’t affect organizations that don’t deal directly with “reproductive rights” as part of their “core mandate”. However, they refused to change the actual wording of the attestation, which appeared to reasonable people to require that they affirm access to abortion as a Charter right or Charter value.

See how your MP voted for the Opposition Motion (Canada Summer Jobs)

Bill C-14 (Legalize Euthanasia)

PASSED at 3rd reading.
It appeared that prioritizing protection of the vulnerable was not the priority when a majority of our Federal Members of Parliament voted in favour of Bill C-14 back in 2016.  A bill that created, “exemptions from offences of culpable homicide,” and of, “…aiding suicide…,” making it legal to be euthanized here in Canada. Our organization brought forward 27 items we believed were necessary components of any legislative proposal to adequately protect the vulnerable.  In my opinion, not one of the following suggestions were enshrined in the federal/provincial legislation or regulatory oversight for medical aid in dying (MAID). The 27-point list included;
  1. The requirement that a complete set of regulations is established for the entire euthanasia process and not just guidelines that define certain parts.
  2. An assurance in law that hospice providers who refuse to perform euthanasia will not be threatened with a loss of government funding.
  3. That regulations for medical aid in dying clearly define the minimum length of time for the ‘cooling off’ period.  This will help ensure the safety of those people who change their minds after making the request for medical aid in dying. 
  4. Protection in legislation that respects the ‘conscience rights’ of doctors who do not wish to participate in the process of euthanasia by determining a person’s eligibility for medical aid in dying – or –  be required to offer a second opinion to a patient or colleague on a case. 
  5. Regulations should also clearly define all doctors’ rights to opt out and should in no way pressure them to alter their positions or participate in the provision of euthanasia services.
  6. That the ‘conscience rights’ of nurses and pharmacists are protected ensuring they will not be required to participate in the preparation for euthanasia, including preparing the dosage and setting up the IV – and – that they may opt out of performing the lethal injection.
  7. The requirement of an application process that ensures the safety of and accessibility to, people who have communication disabilities.  A person’s request for medical aid in dying needs to be very clear before administering medical aid in dying.
  8. A requirement that guarantees are in place for people with mobility challenges ensuring that a person’s request for medical aid in dying is not motivated by a lack of access to equipment or infrastructure that could improve their quality of life and decrease their level of frustration.
  9. Protections in law for people with unscrupulous family members who may have financial interests.
  10. A requirement for establishing enforceable procedural barriers to serial applications.   After being refused medical aid in dying some people may attempt to ‘doctor shop’ until they find someone who will approve the procedure.
  11. Ensure that data will be collected on cases of medical aid in dying and that it will be enough to track doctor shopping and the reasons applicants are refused.
  12. That data will be archived indefinitely enabling long-term analysis of outcomes.
  13. A requirement for a psycho-social evaluation or home visit as part of a process that determines a person’s capacity to make a request for medical aid in dying.  All requests must be freely made, and we must ensure the person is not being abused or coerced into making their request.
  14. That existing provincial judicial processes for determining a person’s capacity are utilized to establish a person’s capacity to make a request for medical aid in dying.  If we allow a ‘fast track’ to be established outside of the law for determining capacity, we will put vulnerable citizens at risk.
  15. A regulatory requirement that a person receive palliative care or other support services to enable him or her to live well until natural death occurs therefore ensuring the “choice” to die is not an illusion where the person does not have a choice in where or how to live.
  16. That the term “end of life” must be clearly defined – and – is not a subjective point in time.  If it is the intent of the law to truly only use medical aid in dying at ‘end of life’ this is a critical component that needs to be well defined in units of time.
  17. That there is a requirement that only qualified Health Care Professionals can determine a person’s eligibility for access to medical aid in dying.  The ‘treating physician’ may not be qualified to make eligibility decisions for example in cases where there is a specific illness the treating physician does not specialize in.  We need to be aware of and fully understand all the aggravating factors linked to a request for medical aid in dying so we can ensure we have reviewed all other possible ways to reduce a person’s suffering.
  18. That there is a requirement in the regulations for a process to deal with possible conflicts of opinion between doctors regarding a person’s eligibility for medical aid in dying.
  19. That government legislation and regulation considers those citizens who do not have a relationship with a family or primary care doctor. 
  20. The requirement that in addition to the request form and results of the physical exam, a review of a person’s medical record is mandatory and will always be part of the application process for medical aid in dying.
  21. That objective measures and explicit procedures are defined to determine eligibility as opposed to a doctor simply being required to ‘assure’ him or herself that the person meets the criteria.
  22. That training and proficiency requirements for doctors in the techniques of euthanasia are required, agreed upon and in place as opposed to the medical community simply being given a mandate to ‘develop proficiencies.’
  23. That adequate oversight is in place in all provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
  24. That there are consequences in law for those who make mistakes in determining a person’s eligibility for medical aid in dying and that result in the loss of a person’s life.
  25. That because any and all oversight of medical aid in dying would be after-the-death, all deliberations of the Commission are transparent and accessible by law enforcement if required.
  26. That the limits of eligibility be clearly defined and cannot be extended to include children and other vulnerable groups such as the mentally ill.
  27. The requirement that euthanasia services are administered and delivered consistently across Canada.  (More comprehensive federal legislation will help ensure this is the case.)
See how your MP voted on Bill C-14 at the 3rd Reading Vote


An Opposition Motion (Freedom of Conscience Euthanasia)
M-312 (Special Committee on Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code – Definition of a Child as a Human Being only at the moment of complete birth)
Bill C-510 (An Act to Prevent Coercion of Pregnant Women to Abort – Roxanne’s Law) 2nd Reading Vote