Demos
EN FR

Bills before Parliament

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.

Sign up free Sign in
Bills 9 Petitions
Filter by category Economic Governance Environmental Identity Reconciliation Clear

Showing only items in every category you picked.

New to this? Read How a bill becomes law in Canada ↗

Ordered by the most recent activity in Parliament. Demos does not rank bills by importance.

Bill C-219 In committee · Senate

International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law No. 3)

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.
Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗
Bill S-214 2nd reading · Commons

An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (disposal of foreign state assets)

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.

card.one_side_only

Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗
Bill C-40 In committee · Commons

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

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.
Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗
Bill C-35 2nd reading · Commons

Ban on Importing Goods Made with Forced Labour Act

Bans the importation of goods into Canada that were produced using forced labour, and gives the Minister of Foreign Affairs power to create a watchlist of specific goods suspected of being made with forced labour.

What it means for you

Companies importing goods into Canada would have to prove their products weren't made with forced labour if asked by border officers, or risk having those goods seized and banned from entry.

EconomicGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 6 points

Supporters say

  • Bill C-35 would shift the burden of proof onto importing companies, requiring them to demonstrate their goods are not made with forced labour — rather than placing that burden on government inspectors.
  • The bill would create a published list of high-risk goods, regions, and companies, giving businesses clearer advance notice of where scrutiny will apply and making the system more transparent.
  • Supporters argue the new framework could make Canada's forced labour import controls more rigorous than those currently in place in the United States or Europe.

Critics say

  • Canada's existing enforcement has been extremely weak — only two shipments suspected of containing forced-labour goods were stopped in five years, and both were ultimately released back to the companies involved.
  • Critics argue the real problem is not the legislation but the speed and seriousness of implementation; without fast, meaningful enforcement using new tools, the bill will change little in practice.
  • A previous supply chain transparency law was quietly amended after passage to remove reporting requirements for distributors and retailers, raising concerns that Bill C-35 could similarly be weakened to benefit large corporations.
Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗
Bill C-281 Not yet scheduled

An Act to amend the Textile Labelling Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act

Requires Canadian flags of a certain minimum size to have a label showing their country of origin, whether sold, imported, or advertised in Canada.

What it means for you

When you buy a Canadian flag, you'll be able to see on the label whether it was made in Canada or another country like China.

EconomicGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗
Bill C-251 Not yet scheduled

An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff (forced labour and child labour)

This bill would amend Canada's customs laws to block imports made using forced labour or child labour, modelled after the U.S. approach used to restrict goods from China's Xinjiang region.

What it means for you

Goods made by workers who were forced to work or by children could be seized at the border, and companies would have to prove their supply chains are clean rather than the government having to prove wrongdoing.

EconomicGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 5 points

Supporters say

  • Canada currently inspects only a tiny fraction of imported goods — about 2% at major ports — and very few shipments are ever seized or held. A clearer legal framework with a list of high-risk entities would dramatically improve enforcement.
  • The U.S. model this bill copies has already seized billions of dollars' worth of goods made under forced labour conditions. Canada should adopt the same standard so it is not a back door for products banned elsewhere.
  • Shifting the burden of proof to importers — requiring them to show their supply chains are free of forced labour — would make enforcement more effective and consistent than the current system, where the government must prove wrongdoing.

Critics say

  • The debate excerpts do not contain explicit arguments against the bill itself. Most parliamentary discussion focused on the broader Canada-Indonesia trade agreement debate, not Bill C-251 directly.
  • stricter import rules could affect Canadian businesses that rely on global supply chains and may complicate trade relationships with partner countries.
Share View full bill on LEGISinfo ↗