What each bill does, in plain language. Both sides of the debate where there has been one.
Parliament, filtered through what you care about
Take a short values survey and Demos shows you the bills and petitions that touch what you care about.
A free account lets you record where you stand, see how your MP voted, email them about it, and get a summary of what matches you — daily, weekly, monthly, or not at all.
This bill would establish a formal policy framework governing how Canada manages and allocates its radio spectrum — the invisible airwaves used for wireless communications like cell phones, Wi-Fi, and broadcasting.
What it means for you
Canadians could see clearer rules guiding how wireless airwaves are managed, potentially affecting competition among telecom companies, rural connectivity, and the cost of wireless services.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
Current mobile coverage maps rely on data provided directly by telecom companies and don't account for signal strength or real-world reliability, leaving Canadians with a false picture of where service actually exists.
The spectrum policy framework guiding how wireless frequencies are allocated in Canada has not been updated since 2007, when smartphones were rare — it needs modernizing to reflect how Canadians live and work today.
when someone is in a car accident or emergency in an area with no signal, they cannot reach help, making reliable coverage a life-or-death issue.
Updates rules and paperwork requirements across dozens of federal laws — covering farming, food safety, environment, transport, and trade — to reduce administrative burden and allow more use of electronic systems.
What it means for you
Farmers, businesses, and regulators would deal with less paperwork and fewer outdated rules, making it easier and cheaper to comply with federal regulations.
EconomicSocialGovernanceEnvironmental
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
The bill would cut red tape so Canadians spend less time on paperwork, with clearer and more efficient rules and regulations.
Fewer barriers and faster government services would help Canadian businesses compete and grow in a changing global economy.
The bill would reduce red tape in agriculture by amending the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, and the Feeds Act, addressing long-standing concerns from farming communities.
This bill declares the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System — a network of dikes and infrastructure connecting New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — to be a work for the 'general advantage of Canada,' making it a federal responsibility.
What it means for you
By making this dike system a federal responsibility, the bill aims to unlock federal funding to protect the land connection between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from flooding and sea-level rise.
EconomicGovernanceEnvironmental
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Bill S-5 creates a federal framework requiring health technology companies to share patient data across different systems and prohibits them from deliberately blocking that data sharing.
What it means for you
Your health records could follow you wherever you receive care in Canada, so doctors always have the information they need to treat you — no more repeated forms or missing test results.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Patients and doctors often cannot access or share health records across providers, clinics, and provinces. The bill would set national rules so records can move with patients, reducing delays and errors in care.
Doctors spend too much time on paperwork and faxing. A national interoperability framework would let electronic records connect, freeing time for patient care.
Common national data standards would give technology vendors one set of rules instead of different requirements in each province, lowering costs and making it easier to build systems that work across Canada.
Critics say
The federal government's previous digital health program, PrescribeIT, was shut down after low uptake and high costs. Critics worry that Canada Health Infoway, which ran it, is being given a role in this bill without enough accountability for past problems.
Critics want the committee to finish its ongoing study of PrescribeIT before moving ahead with a new national digital health project, arguing that Parliament should resolve past failures first.
Some critics question whether a national model fits with provincial systems, such as Alberta's Connect Care, which already involves large public investment. They ask how the bill would work alongside existing provincial programs.
Implements the second set of measures from Canada's November 2025 federal budget, covering a wide range of policy changes across defence procurement, transportation, and other areas in a 330+ page omnibus bill.
What it means for you
This bill would change how the government spends money and runs programs in several areas — from how military equipment is purchased to how air travel complaints are handled — but most Canadians won't feel direct effects right away.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Automatic federal benefits would help people receive benefits they are entitled to, even if they have not filed a tax return.
A temporary immediate expensing rule (the productivity superdeduction) would let businesses write off new manufacturing and processing buildings faster, which supporters say will encourage investment and create jobs.
The bill would limit tax deferral through multi-tiered corporate structures, require certain crypto platforms to report user transactions, and implement the undertaxed profits rule under the global minimum tax framework.
Critics say
Removing mandatory 15-year re-evaluations of pesticides would weaken oversight. Critics say the replacement assessments rely only on existing information, do not require new data gathering, and lack the public consultation and published reasons that re-evaluations require.
The bill gives cabinet and ministers broad discretionary powers, including the ability to approve pesticides that regulators rejected, take over corporations, and override other laws. Critics say this reduces democratic and scientific oversight.
The new defence investment rules include many exclusions from competitive bidding and allow ministers to justify exemptions. Critics warn this increases the risk of favouritism and sole-sourcing, and adds bureaucracy without getting equipment to the armed forces faster.
This bill would create a national framework to make electronic products and home appliances last longer, likely through durability standards, repairability requirements, or manufacturer obligations.
What it means for you
Canadians could expect their phones, appliances, and electronics to be built to last longer and be easier to repair, potentially saving money and reducing waste.
EconomicGovernanceEnvironmental
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Consumers spend heavily on appliances that break early. A national framework would target durability and repairability, which could save money and reduce waste.
The bill would set national minimum standards that provinces can build on, bringing consistency to the current patchwork of provincial laws.
Better access to replacement parts, repair information and software would let consumers and independent repairers choose lower-cost repairs. Supporters cite an analysis estimating savings of up to 30% on routine car repairs.
Critics say
The bill sets no concrete requirements. Its actual standards would come later, so consumers and businesses cannot yet judge its effects. Critics want specific durability and repair rules written into the law now.
Stronger durability requirements could raise upfront prices, which may hurt families on tight budgets. Some witnesses questioned whether the bill would drive up appliance costs.
The bill has no penalties or liability provisions, and it does not itself create enforceable repair rights. Critics say this makes compliance uncertain.
This bill would create a new tax credit for businesses or individuals who install heat recovery systems that capture and reuse waste heat from industrial or commercial processes.
What it means for you
Businesses investing in heat recovery technology would pay less tax, making it cheaper to adopt energy-efficient equipment that reduces energy costs and emissions.
EconomicGovernanceEnvironmental
The debate · 1 points
Critics say
The federal government already has a $400-million program, SHIFT, to improve energy efficiency in industrial facilities, so a separate tax credit for heat recovery equipment may be unnecessary.
Requires the CPP Investment Board's investment policies to bar investments in any entity with reasons to believe it has committed human, labour or environmental rights violations, produced prohibited munitions, or directed certain corruption offences.
What it means for you
Canadians with CPP savings could see their pension fund exclude companies accused of human rights, labour, environmental or corruption violations. Whether this affects returns depends on how the board applies the test.
EconomicSocialGovernanceEnvironmental
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would require the federal government to develop a national framework for addressing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) — a lifelong condition caused by alcohol exposure before birth — covering prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and support services.
What it means for you
Canadians affected by FASD and their families could benefit from a more coordinated, country-wide approach to diagnosis and support, reducing the patchwork of services that currently varies by province.
EconomicSocialGovernanceReconciliation
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would allow Canada to permanently seize frozen assets belonging to foreign governments or officials who violate human rights or commit acts of aggression — and use that money to support victims, such as Ukraine.
What it means for you
Canada holds about $23 billion in frozen Russian assets. This bill could let the government take those funds permanently and redirect them to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild after Russia's invasion.
EconomicGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 5 points
Supporters say
Billions in frozen Russian assets are sitting idle in Canada while Ukraine is actively at war — seizing and redirecting them would give Ukraine real, meaningful support beyond just writing cheques from Canadian taxpayers.
Legal experts and human rights lawyers argue Canada already has the authority to forfeit these assets, and this bill provides the clear legal framework to do so.
Holding Russia financially accountable sends a strong message that countries cannot wage illegal wars of aggression without consequences — it turns frozen assets into a real cost for the aggressor.
Critics say
The government has not yet acted on seizing these assets, which critics say signals reluctance — possibly due to concerns about international legal precedent or diplomatic consequences.
Some worry that permanently confiscating state assets could set a precedent that other countries might use against Canadian assets abroad in future disputes.
This bill would amend Canada's Competition Act to strengthen rules against anti-competitive behaviour, aiming to make markets fairer and more open for businesses and consumers.
What it means for you
Canadians could benefit from more competitive markets, potentially leading to lower prices and more choices for goods and services.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
The Competition Bureau gaining a clearer mandate to study and report on internal trade barriers would institutionalize reform efforts, helping them outlast any single government or political moment.
Regulatory patchworks across provinces impose real economic costs—differing trucking rules alone add an estimated 8.3% to freight rates, a $1.6-billion drag on the Canadian economy.
Australia adopted a similar approach to empowering its competition regulator on internal trade and saw meaningful results, suggesting this model works in comparable federal systems.
This bill would change the law to allow the Canadian government to sell or transfer frozen assets belonging to foreign states — such as Russia — rather than just freezing them.
What it means for you
Canada could potentially use seized Russian government assets to help fund rebuilding efforts in countries like Ukraine, rather than leaving the money frozen indefinitely.
EconomicGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 2 points
Supporters say
Bill S-214 would let cabinet decide on asset seizures under sanctions law, speeding up the process and complementing the time limit proposed in Bill C-219.
Bill S-214 has already passed third reading in the Senate, and the committee should consider adding it to the bill under study.
This bill requires the federal government to create a national strategy for children and youth in Canada, setting out a coordinated plan to improve the well-being of young Canadians.
What it means for you
The federal government would be legally required to develop and follow a plan focused on the health, safety, and opportunities available to children and youth across Canada.
EconomicSocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would remove a provision from the Canada Labour Code (section 107) that allows the federal government to force striking workers back to work by ordering binding arbitration or imposing other conditions to end a labour dispute.
What it means for you
Federal workers in sectors like transportation and communications would have a stronger right to strike, since the government could no longer step in to end their work stoppages shortly after they begin.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 4 points
Supporters say
Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used eight times in the past two years, often within hours of a strike starting. Supporters say this undermines workers' constitutional right to strike.
Supporters argue that when the government can end a strike, employers have less reason to bargain in good faith, and unions may lose their main source of bargaining power.
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized in 2016 that the right to strike is an essential part of collective bargaining. Supporters say repealing section 107 would respect that ruling.
Critics say
The government has chosen to revise section 107 through Bill C-39 rather than repeal it. It says the changes add safeguards and do not weaken the right to strike. Critics of the bill dispute this, but the government's position is that repeal is not needed.
This bill would repeal the law that bans large oil tankers from operating along Canada's northern Pacific coast (mainly the northern B.C. coastline).
What it means for you
If passed, oil tankers would be allowed to carry crude and other petroleum products through waters off northern B.C. that are currently off-limits, potentially enabling new pipeline and export projects.
EconomicGovernanceEnvironmentalReconciliation
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
A rail project already in place could ship 250,000 barrels of oil a day from Prince Rupert, starting in about two years and without taxpayer subsidy.
Removing the west coast tanker ban would let Canadian oil reach world prices through the Pacific, instead of selling in the U.S. at a discount (cited as $26 a barrel lower).
The tanker ban does not stop tankers from sailing through the waters it is meant to protect, so its environmental rationale is questioned.
Creates a new Crown corporation called the Canadian Corporation for Defence Investment (also known as the Defence Investment Agency) to streamline how Canada buys, produces, and invests in military equipment and supplies, while also expanding the government's authority over defence-related procurement and stockpiling.
What it means for you
Canadian taxpayers and defence industry workers could see faster, more flexible military procurement — meaning the military gets equipment sooner — but with a new Crown corporation adding a layer of government structure to defence spending.
EconomicGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
A single agency that approves and speeds up major national projects, such as ports, rail, energy links and critical minerals, could cut years of delays while working with provinces and Indigenous partners.
A Crown corporation for defence purchases could modernize the armed forces faster and help Canadian companies win military contracts and supply-chain work.
The agency could invest up to $1 billion in Canadian companies through loans, guarantees and insurance, helping build a domestic defence industry and create good jobs.
Critics say
Placing defence purchasing decisions in a Crown corporation, with a board making the choices, would reduce ministerial and parliamentary oversight of large public spending.
Details of the bill were reportedly shared with journalists before it was introduced, which undermines Parliament's right to see legislation first. Critics say the government's investigation was not thorough enough.
Critics say the bill's spending and tax measures are presented as investments when they may not be, which makes the true cost of government harder to see and raises questions about long-term debt.
The Canadian Space Launch Act amends the Aeronautics Act and other laws to create a legal framework governing commercial rocket launches from Canadian soil.
What it means for you
Canadian companies wanting to launch rockets would need to follow new federal rules, and the government would gain new powers to regulate and oversee the emerging commercial space industry in Canada.
Canada needs clear rules for commercial space launches to allow the industry to grow safely — right now there is no dedicated legal framework, leaving a gap that holds back Canadian companies.
Establishing a licensing and oversight regime puts Canada on par with other countries that already regulate commercial space launches, helping Canadian firms compete internationally.
Federal oversight of space launches can protect public safety, national security, and Canadian airspace while still enabling new economic opportunities in a fast-growing sector.
Critics say
Critics argue the bill gives too much power to the executive branch — ministers and unelected officials — without enough oversight or checks and balances from Parliament.
Concerns have been raised about government space procurement practices alongside this bill, including a controversial $200-million lease of a Nova Scotia launch site, suggesting the new framework may not have adequate safeguards against wasteful spending.
Some members believe the bill should also be studied by the Standing Committee on Science and Research, not just the transport committee, to ensure the science and innovation dimensions receive proper scrutiny.
This bill updates Canada's rules for measuring weights, electricity, and gas — modernizing the technical standards and regulations that govern how these quantities are measured and inspected.
What it means for you
For most Canadians, this means more accurate and up-to-date measurement standards for everyday things like utility meters and commercial scales — ensuring fairer billing and trade.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
The bill modernizes the Weights and Measures Act, the federal law that sets rules for measurements and how goods are sold by weight, volume, or length.
The bill would allow standard unit pricing, which shows the price per common unit (such as per 100 grams) so shoppers can compare products more easily. Officials found the current Act could not support this.
Some MPs have said they will support the bill because it is a good measure in the interest of Canadians, and they have backed it as one of the government bills passed this Parliament.
This bill would reverse recent Health Canada regulations that increased fees and restrictions on natural health products like vitamins, herbal remedies, and probiotics.
What it means for you
Canadians who buy vitamins, supplements, and natural health products could see lower prices and more options on store shelves.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
The 2023 changes placed natural health products under the same rules as prescription drugs, which supporters say is a poor fit for everyday vitamins, minerals and supplements.
The changes were added to a large budget bill without public consultation, and supporters note that over 80% of Canadians use these products.
New licensing, labelling, fees and penalties would raise costs for small Canadian businesses, which supporters say provide tens of thousands of jobs.
Critics say
Removing the 2023 rules would take away Health Canada's power to order recalls, require safety information and impose penalties when a natural health product poses a serious risk.
Voluntary compliance may not be enough. Critics argue the regulator needs legal authority to act when a manufacturer refuses to recall a contaminated product.
Even low-risk products can interact with prescription medications. Pharmacists say patients, especially older adults and pregnant people, need reliable safety information and oversight.
This bill would require the Canada Revenue Agency to publicly report on the 'tax gap' — the difference between taxes that Canadians owe and what is actually collected, including taxes lost to international tax evasion.
What it means for you
Canadians would get a clearer picture of how much tax revenue is lost each year to evasion and avoidance, creating public pressure and parliamentary accountability to crack down on tax cheats.
EconomicGovernance
The debate · 5 points
Supporters say
Just as having an independent body forecast the economy alongside the government leads to more accurate results, having an external organization measure the tax gap would improve accountability and push both the government and watchdogs to share better information with Parliament.
Without a public measure of unpaid taxes, MPs and senators have no baseline to evaluate whether the government is doing enough to collect what is owed — this bill would give them that tool.
Money hidden offshore or through complex schemes is money not available for public services. Measuring the gap is the first step toward closing it.
Critics say
Some argue that requiring the Canada Revenue Agency to produce this reporting duplicates work already done within government, adding administrative burden without necessarily improving collection.
Estimating the tax gap involves significant uncertainty and methodological challenges, meaning published figures could be misleading or contested.
This is a wide-ranging omnibus bill touching many different policies important to Canadians. Included among these, it speeds up government approvals for major infrastructure and energy projects, strengthens supply chain laws, updates labour rules, and modernizes trade document processes.
What it means for you
Big construction and energy projects could get approved faster, goods could move more efficiently across Canada, and workers in federally regulated industries could see changes to collective bargaining rights. Read the deep analysis for more details.
The bill would speed up approvals for major projects such as energy, mining, ports and transportation corridors. Supporters say a single, coordinated review and clearer timelines would give investors more certainty and get projects built faster.
Supporters say the bill would reduce work stoppages in federally regulated sectors such as transportation and trade. They argue that more time to bargain, earlier access to mediation, and clearer rules would help workers and employers reach agreements before disputes escalate.
The bill would strengthen labour protections, including measures against wage theft and worker misclassification, better protection for workers when contracts change hands, help for workers seeking a first collective agreement, and faster grievance arbitration.
Critics say
Changes to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the federal government to end legal strikes and lockouts. Critics say the criteria for intervention are too broad, and they call for clear limits, written reasons to Parliament, and an independent mediator. Some unions want section 107 repealed entirely.
Several First Nations and Indigenous organizations say they were not properly consulted, that consultation was rushed, and that they received too little information about major projects. Some have launched court challenges, and they argue the bill could affect treaty rights and fall short of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Critics argue the bill would weaken environmental protections and favour fossil fuel infrastructure. They cite scientists' concerns about irreversible environmental damage and argue that Canada's climate goals are being undermined.
This bill would require alcoholic beverages sold in Canada to carry warning labels about the health risks of drinking alcohol, including the risk of cancer and fetal harm during pregnancy.
What it means for you
Every bottle of beer, wine, or liquor you buy would have a health warning label, similar to the warnings on cigarette packages, so consumers know the risks before they drink.
EconomicSocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.