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 National Blanket Ceremony Day in Canada to recognize and honour Indigenous peoples and promote understanding of the impacts of colonization.
What it means for you
Once a year, Canadians would be invited to participate in or learn about the Blanket Ceremony, a teaching tool used to help people understand the history of Indigenous land loss and colonial policies.
SocialGovernanceIdentityReconciliation
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Creates a national framework to formally recognize certain Canadian military service as 'wartime service,' with clear, objective criteria and a transparent government process for making that designation.
What it means for you
Veterans who served in modern conflicts — even without a formal declaration of war — could receive official symbolic and commemorative recognition of their wartime service, closing a long-standing gap in how Canada honours its military personnel.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 5 points
Supporters say
Canadian Armed Forces members who served in dangerous modern conflicts faced real risk and hardship, but have not always received the same formal recognition as those in earlier declared wars. This bill closes that gap.
By establishing objective criteria — such as level of risk, intensity of operations, and exposure to physical or psychological harm — the framework ensures recognition is based on the realities of service, not bureaucratic labels or politics.
The designation is a meaningful act of commemoration that doesn't change financial entitlements, so it fills a gap in honour and acknowledgment without creating new spending pressures.
Critics say
The government cautioned that the review and assessment process must be done carefully the first time, suggesting concern that rushing the framework could create inconsistencies or unmet expectations for current and future veterans.
No opposition arguments were found in the available Hansard transcript beyond calls for careful implementation.
This bill would strengthen criminal penalties for people who vandalize, damage, or destroy religious property — like churches, mosques, synagogues, or temples — under Canada's mischief laws.
What it means for you
If someone damages a place of worship, they could face tougher criminal consequences than under current law, aiming to deter hate-motivated attacks on religious sites.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
Places of worship across Canada — churches, cathedrals, and other religious sites — continue to face vandalism and arson, and stronger legal protections are needed to hold offenders accountable.
Faith communities play a vital role in Canadian society, providing compassion, belonging, and community services for generations. Protecting their physical spaces protects the communities they serve.
No religious tradition should have to fear for the safety of its sacred places, and tougher penalties would send a clear message that attacks on religious property are unacceptable.
Creates a new criminal offence specifically for stealing or possessing stolen property of cultural or religious significance, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison for theft and up to 5 years for possession.
What it means for you
If someone steals items like religious artifacts, cultural objects, or heritage property, they could face harsher penalties than for ordinary theft — up to 10 years in prison.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 2 points
Supporters say
The bill addresses the theft of religious items, such as mezuzahs (small scrolls placed on doorframes in Jewish homes), which has caused real concern in Jewish communities.
The issue is non-partisan, so the bill could be a good area for cooperation across parties.
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 establish a national Judicial Independence Day in Canada to recognize and celebrate the principle that judges must be free from political interference when making decisions.
What it means for you
Canadians would have a designated day to reflect on the importance of an independent judiciary as a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 5 points
Supporters say
The bill would allow Canada to impose sanctions on foreign governments that intimidate, harass, or threaten their own citizens living abroad — a practice known as transnational repression.
It would require the government to formally respond when Parliament passes a motion calling for sanctions against a corrupt foreign leader, making the sanctions process more accountable.
It strengthens existing human rights tools by expanding the Magnitsky sanctions law, which has not been used since 2018, and by adding a clear definition of 'prisoner of conscience.'
Critics say
Publicly listing the names and status of political prisoners could put their families at risk of retaliation from the governments holding them.
The bill overlaps with an earlier bill that passed the House unanimously but died before becoming law, and key differences between the two versions need careful review in committee.
Designates a specific month as Caribbean Heritage Month in Canada, officially recognizing the contributions of Caribbean Canadians to the country.
What it means for you
Canadians of Caribbean heritage would have an official national month celebrating their culture and contributions, similar to other heritage month designations.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would require Elections Canada to collect demographic information — such as age, gender, and ethnicity — from voters, to better understand who is and isn't participating in Canadian elections.
What it means for you
Elections Canada would gather information about the backgrounds of people who vote, helping identify gaps in voter participation among different groups in Canadian society.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would require the federal government to create a national strategy to combat human trafficking in Canada, coordinating efforts across government, law enforcement, and support services.
What it means for you
Victims of human trafficking — often vulnerable women, children, and migrants — could receive better protection and support through a more unified and funded national response.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill grants Canadian citizenship to children who were in foster care or government-supervised care in Canada, as long as they meet residency and care requirements — and it protects them from deportation while their citizenship application is being processed.
What it means for you
Young adults who grew up in Canada's foster care system but were never citizens could finally get Canadian citizenship — and stop living under the threat of being deported to countries they've never really known.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would change the Criminal Code to prevent judges from giving lighter sentences to non-citizens just to help them avoid deportation.
What it means for you
If a non-citizen commits a crime in Canada, the judge could no longer reduce their sentence to keep them from being deported — the punishment would be based on the crime, not their immigration status.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Sentencing should reflect the severity of the crime, not be adjusted to help someone avoid deportation. Giving lighter punishments to protect non-citizens from immigration consequences treats victims as less important than offenders.
Some non-citizens convicted of serious crimes have received reduced sentences specifically so they could stay in Canada. This bill would end that practice and ensure the punishment fits the crime.
Communities across Canada — including in Surrey, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton — have experienced rising extortion and violent crime. Ensuring consistent sentencing for non-citizen offenders is one step toward restoring public safety.
Critics say
Judges consider many factors when sentencing — removing their ability to weigh immigration consequences limits their discretion and may lead to unjust outcomes in individual cases.
Deportation can have severe, sometimes life-threatening consequences. Courts have long recognized that collateral consequences, including deportation, are relevant to a proportionate sentence.
This change could disproportionately affect permanent residents and long-term immigrants who have built lives in Canada, even for less serious offences.
This bill would exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, meaning the federal law promoting multiculturalism would no longer apply in that province.
What it means for you
Quebec would no longer be bound by Canada's federal multiculturalism policy, giving the province more freedom to pursue its own distinct cultural and integration approach.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Bill C-257 would amend the Criminal Code to make it a crime to wilfully promote terrorism, terrorist activity, or terrorist groups — including glorifying or celebrating such groups or their actions.
What it means for you
If passed, it would be illegal to publicly celebrate or promote terrorist groups or their attacks — a gap left when a previous law criminalizing glorification of terrorism was repealed in 2017.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
A law that once banned glorifying terrorism was repealed in 2017, leaving no clear criminal prohibition against publicly celebrating terrorist groups or their attacks. This bill would restore that protection.
People have been seen in Canadian cities dressing as and celebrating convicted terrorists, including those responsible for mass killings. Criminalizing this behaviour would send a clear message that such conduct is unacceptable.
Multiple experts who testified at the justice committee argued that wilful promotion of terrorism should be criminalized, suggesting broad agreement that this gap needs to be closed.
Critics say
Critics argue that criminalizing the 'promotion' of terrorism could be interpreted broadly enough to restrict legitimate political speech, protest, or commentary about conflicts abroad.
Determining what counts as 'promotion' or 'glorification' versus political expression or criticism of foreign policy is legally complex and could lead to inconsistent enforcement.
Canada's Criminal Code already contains offences related to terrorism financing and participation — opponents may argue additional speech-based offences are redundant or overly broad.
This bill would add Indigenous peoples as a specifically protected group under the Criminal Code's hate speech provisions, making it illegal to promote hatred against them.
What it means for you
Canadians who publicly promote hatred targeting Indigenous peoples could face criminal charges, giving Indigenous communities stronger legal protection against hate speech.
SocialGovernanceIdentityReconciliation
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Creates a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian Armed Forces members who died while serving in peacetime within Canada.
What it means for you
Canadians would have an official day to recognize and remember military personnel who lost their lives during peacetime service, not just in combat or overseas missions.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
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.
EconomicSocialGovernanceIdentity
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.
Creates an independent ombudsperson to investigate complaints from people dealing with Canada's immigration and citizenship system, giving them a place to turn when they feel they've been treated unfairly.
What it means for you
If you or a family member have a complaint about how an immigration application was handled, you'd have an independent watchdog — separate from the government — to investigate and push for answers.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill proposes changes to Canada's immigration law to modify the rules around when a refugee can lose their protected status in Canada.
What it means for you
Refugees living in Canada would have stronger protections against losing their status, making it harder for the government to take away their right to stay.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
This bill would amend the Constitution to change the oath of office that Members of Parliament must swear, likely modifying or removing the oath of allegiance to the Crown.
What it means for you
MPs might no longer be required to swear allegiance to the King, which could affect what it means to hold public office in Canada.
SocialGovernanceIdentity
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
