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.
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Farmers, businesses, and regulators would deal with less paperwork and fewer outdated rules, making it easier and cheaper to comply with federal regulations.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.
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.
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 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.
Amends the Employment Insurance Act and Canada Labour Code to provide grieving parents with up to 15 weeks of EI benefits after the death of a child, and guarantees job-protected leave for the same period. Removes the administrative burden of proving medical incapacity to work.
What it means for you
If a parent loses a child, they can take up to 15 weeks off work with EI benefits without needing a doctor's note proving they can't work. Their job is protected. Currently, bereaved parents must use sick leave or go without pay.
EconomicSocial
The debate · 5 points
Supporters say
Parents who lose a child while on parental leave currently lose their benefits and must contact Service Canada. If they don't, they can build up a debt that the Canada Revenue Agency later recovers. The bill would let them keep their benefits without these steps.
Supporters say the bill would cost little on a net basis. Many parents would otherwise move to EI sickness benefits, which pay about the same. The bill would also reduce administrative work, such as biweekly reports and debt recovery.
Research on perinatal deaths finds that parents who lack paid leave, or who return to work too soon, report more psychological distress and difficulty at work. Quebec's existing leave for late pregnancy losses is cited as a model.
Critics say
A Library of Parliament costing estimates payouts of several million dollars. Some members worry about the fiscal impact, although the bill's sponsor disputes that the net cost would be high.
The Speaker has ruled that the bill needs a royal recommendation before its final vote in the House. Without one, the bill cannot pass in its current form.
Raises the annual child care expense deduction limits from 2027 onward, from $11,000 to $16,345 for children eligible for the disability tax credit, and from $8,000 and $5,000 to $12,855 and $7,529 for other children. After 2027 the limits would be indexed to the Consumer Price Index.
What it means for you
Families who pay for child care could deduct more of those costs from their taxable income starting in 2027, and the limits would rise with inflation over time. The amount of tax saved depends on each family's income and tax bracket.
EconomicSocial
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
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.
This bill requires the federal government to create a national strategy to end 'energy poverty' — the inability to afford adequate heating, cooling, and electricity — with targets, reporting to Parliament, and an advisory council.
What it means for you
Low-income Canadians, seniors, renters, and people in northern or remote communities who struggle to pay energy bills could eventually benefit from new federal programs focused on affordable energy and home efficiency upgrades.
A national strategy would create federal accountability for addressing energy poverty.
The federal government can collect and analyze data and set thresholds, so it can direct time and resources where they will have the greatest impact.
Improving home energy efficiency, such as furnaces and boilers, reduces energy use even when that energy comes from fossil fuels. The Canada Greener Homes Affordability Program is a positive step in this direction.
This bill would require the federal government to create a national housing strategy specifically focused on young Canadians, addressing the unique affordability and availability challenges they face in the housing market.
What it means for you
Young Canadians struggling to find affordable housing would see a dedicated government plan designed to address their specific challenges when trying to buy or rent a home.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Young Canadians have been hit hardest by the housing crisis, and a dedicated national strategy would give them a targeted road map to improve access to affordable housing.
Having a strategic plan is standard practice for any successful organization — it sets clear goals, accountability, and direction for solving a known problem.
Without a youth-specific focus, general housing policies may not address the particular barriers young people face, such as saving for a down payment or qualifying for a mortgage.
Critics say
The federal government has already launched housing strategies that cost hundreds of billions of dollars but produced few results — another strategy risks repeating the same failures.
Critics argue the bill adds more bureaucracy and red tape without addressing the root causes of the housing shortage, like slow permitting, development fees, and excessive regulation.
Some argue that broad, universal policies — like removing the GST on new home construction — would do more for young Canadians than a targeted strategy that could create favouritism in how funds are distributed.
Creates a national framework for addressing sickle cell disease in Canada, establishing a coordinated federal approach to research, treatment, and support for those affected.
What it means for you
Canadians living with sickle cell disease could benefit from better coordinated care, more research funding, and improved access to treatment across the country.
EconomicSocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Bill C-36 replaces Canada's main private-sector privacy law (PIPEDA) with a new, stronger law called the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, which gives Canadians more control over their personal data and sets tougher rules for how businesses collect, use, and share that information.
What it means for you
If a company misuses your personal data — like selling it without your consent or failing to protect it from a breach — you would have stronger rights to complain, seek compensation, and have your data deleted, with fines up to 5% of a company's global revenue for serious violations.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
The bill recognizes privacy as a fundamental right and updates Canada's consumer privacy law to give people more control over their personal data.
It adds stronger protections for children's information, requiring companies to handle it with extra care.
It creates a right to have personal data deleted, and gives people a right to an explanation when an automated system makes a significant decision about them, such as one affecting a mortgage or a job.
Critics say
The bill would create a powerful new digital safety commission with authority over personal data and take that role from the federal Privacy Commissioner. Many key details are left to future regulations, and critics say it lacks clear limits, transparency and a right of appeal.
Critics say the bill puts much of the responsibility for protecting data on companies. They also question how Canadian data stored on foreign servers would be protected from foreign laws such as the U.S. CLOUD Act, given the lack of sovereign cloud infrastructure.
Some warn that giving one regulator broad power over data and online activity could lead to state overreach, including surveillance or restrictions on lawful expression, unless strong safeguards are added.
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.
EconomicSocialGovernanceIdentity
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.
This bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to strengthen workers' rights to fair representation by their union, likely expanding protections and remedies when unions fail to adequately represent members.
What it means for you
If you're a unionized worker who feels your union isn't properly representing you in a grievance or dispute, this bill could give you stronger legal protections and better ways to seek help.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 2 points
Supporters say
Would ensure unions represent only the workers they are meant to represent, not corporations, businesses or other outside interests.
they can raise wages and benefits, and those gains can spread across whole sectors.
This bill would increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for seniors aged 65 to 74, bringing them up to the same level already received by seniors aged 75 and over.
What it means for you
Seniors between 65 and 74 — especially women living alone — would receive higher monthly OAS cheques, reducing a gap that currently exists compared to older seniors.
EconomicSocial
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
The bill would raise Old Age Security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. In 2023, the government increased benefits only for those 75 and older, which supporters say creates two unequal classes of seniors.
Old Age Security has lost ground against wages. It was about 20% of the average industrial wage in 1971 and is about 12% today, so seniors' purchasing power has eroded as rent and food costs rise.
The bill would let seniors earn up to $1,500 more in employment income without reducing their guaranteed income supplement. This would help those who want to keep working, including isolated seniors, increase their income.
This bill would create a new law requiring that mental health and addiction treatment be covered equally to physical health care under federal health funding agreements with provinces.
What it means for you
Canadians struggling with mental illness or addiction would have stronger legal guarantees that their treatment is funded at the same level as physical health care like surgery or cancer treatment.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
Canada is in a mental health and substance use crisis, made worse by COVID-19, and many people cannot get timely care.
Limited community services send more people to emergency rooms and family doctors, and untreated mental illness carries large social and economic costs.
Mental health should be treated on equal footing with physical health in the universal public health care system, with publicly funded, culturally appropriate services available beyond hospitals and doctors' offices.
This bill would amend the Veterans Well-being Act to require the government to cover the cost of service dogs for veterans dealing with physical or mental health conditions.
What it means for you
Veterans who need a service dog to help manage conditions like PTSD or physical disabilities would have that cost covered as part of their benefits.
EconomicSocial
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Establishes a legal framework to ensure Canadians can continue to use physical cash (banknotes and coins) for everyday transactions, preventing businesses or government from forcing people to use only digital payment methods.
What it means for you
If you prefer to pay with cash at stores or government offices, this bill would protect your right to do so and prevent businesses from refusing physical currency.
EconomicSocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would create a national framework to improve health care and health outcomes specifically for women across Canada, addressing gaps in research, treatment, and services.
What it means for you
Women in Canada could benefit from better-coordinated health services, more research into conditions that affect them, and federal standards designed with their specific needs in mind.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
Canada needs a national approach to women's health, because gaps in care exist across the country, including in cancer care.
about 31,000 were diagnosed this year, and one in eight women will face the disease.
Lipedema, a serious condition affecting women, should be included in the national women's health strategy to address gaps in diagnosis and care.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create new offences related to the theft and trafficking of scrap metal, particularly targeting metals from essential infrastructure like power lines, railways, and pipelines.
What it means for you
Stealing copper wire, rail spikes, or other metals from critical infrastructure would face stiffer criminal penalties, aiming to deter thefts that can cause power outages or safety hazards.
EconomicSocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Bill C-233 would close a loophole in Canada's arms export laws that allows Canadian-made weapons and weapon components to be exported to the United States without the same oversight applied to other countries — meaning they can then be re-exported to third countries with poor human rights records.
What it means for you
Canadian-made weapons parts have reportedly been found in conflict zones like Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen. This bill would require the same human rights checks for arms sent to the U.S. as for any other country, making it harder for Canadian weapons to end up in war zones.
EconomicSocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Canadian-made weapon parts have reportedly been found in conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen — a current loophole allows arms exported to the U.S. to be re-transferred to conflict zones without the same oversight applied to direct exports to those countries.
Canada signed the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019, committing to prevent arms transfers where there is a substantial risk of use in war crimes or human rights abuses. The current U.S. exemption is seen as undermining that commitment.
Community groups and witnesses, including members of the Sudanese Canadian community, say Canadian-made weapons have ended up in the hands of militias committing atrocities, and closing this loophole would prevent Canada from being complicit in those acts.
Critics say
The Liberal government has not publicly endorsed the bill, suggesting concern that removing the U.S. exemption could complicate Canada-U.S. defence and trade relationships at a sensitive time.
Some argue that existing export controls and diplomatic channels are sufficient to address the issue without changing the legislative framework for the Canada-U.S. defence relationship.
Critics of the bill's framing suggest that arms re-transfers are already subject to U.S. export control laws, and that unilaterally removing the exemption could harm the bilateral defence industrial base without meaningfully reducing arms reaching conflict zones.
