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Farmers, businesses, and regulators would deal with less paperwork and fewer outdated rules, making it easier and cheaper to comply with federal regulations.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.
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.
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.
Allows doctors and nurse practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying to a person who has lost the capacity to consent, if that person made an advance request while capable and the province has a legislative regime for storing and managing those requests. Keeps mental illness excluded as a basis for eligibility for medical assistance in dying.
What it means for you
People with a serious, incurable illness could arrange in advance to receive medical assistance in dying if they later lose the ability to decide, but only in provinces with a storage regime for these requests. Those whose only underlying condition is a mental illness would still not be eligible.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Allowing adults with an incurable illness to request medical assistance in dying in advance would let them make decisions about their care while they can still make them, subject to strict safeguards.
The two measures in the bill are linked. The rule that mental illness alone cannot be the basis for an advance request is part of the same framework, so keeping them together makes the system consistent.
The bill deals with one subject, medical assistance in dying, and amends only the Criminal Code and related laws. A single vote at second reading is therefore appropriate.
Critics say
Stopping medical assistance in dying for mental illness alone and allowing advance requests are separate policy questions. MPs should be able to vote on each one separately.
A single vote forces MPs who support one measure but oppose the other into an all-or-nothing choice.
Because the subject touches deeply held personal and moral convictions, critics argue the bill deserves special treatment in the process, as earlier medical assistance in dying laws received.
This bill would increase the minimum period a person must serve in prison before becoming eligible for parole after being convicted of certain serious crimes, such as the murder and sexual assault of the same victim.
What it means for you
If someone murders and sexually assaults the same person, they would have to wait longer in prison before they could apply for early release, giving victims' families more time before facing parole hearings.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Families could face fewer parole hearings. Under current law, they may be required to attend a review every two years, sometimes for life. The bill would reduce these hearings and spare families from retelling the crimes.
Current practice lets prosecutors drop the abduction and sexual assault charges and proceed only on murder, so offenders are effectively sentenced for murder alone. The bill would recognize that three distinct crimes were committed.
The bill gives judges discretion rather than imposing mandatory sentences. It applies only when abduction, sexual assault and murder are committed against the same victim, is not retroactive, and caps extended parole ineligibility at 40 years, based on the combined consecutive maximums.
Critics say
Parole ineligibility beyond 25 years may violate the Charter's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The Bissonnette decision struck down consecutive ineligibility periods, partly because they offered no realistic prospect of release.
Justice Department officials warned that any change to parole ineligibility would be closely scrutinized by the courts under the Charter.
Some say the bill is incomplete or legally unclear. Proposed amendments would add an offender right of appeal, confirm that the bill is not retroactive, and clarify its scope regarding offences under the military justice system.
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.
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 amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to require the RCMP to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities before conducting certain operations or activities on their traditional lands.
What it means for you
Indigenous communities would gain a formal right to say yes or no before the RCMP carries out specific activities on their traditional territories, giving them greater control over policing on their lands.
SocialGovernanceReconciliation
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.
Creates new rules requiring social media platforms and chatbot services to protect users — especially children — from harmful online content, and establishes a new federal watchdog called the Digital Safety Commission of Canada to enforce those rules.
What it means for you
Social media companies would have to limit children's access to pornographic content, give users tools to block and report harmful posts, and label AI-generated content — with a new federal commission able to order platforms to remove images that sexually exploit children or were shared without consent.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
The bill would require social media services to keep children under 16 from having accounts, shielding young people from harmful online content.
Supporters point to research linking algorithmic feeds, autoplay and endless scrolling to rising anxiety and depression among young people.
The bill would require platforms to assess how their designs may encourage harmful content and to publish what they find. It would also require them to share user and activity data with independent researchers, and it would cover AI chatbots as well as social media.
Critics say
Critics argue the bill would erode Canadians' rights and limit democratic participation, and that it was rushed through with limited debate.
Most harmful content would stay online. The bill requires risk assessments and transparency, but mandatory takedowns apply only to non-consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material.
Penalties are too weak. The bill says penalties aim to promote compliance rather than punish, and critics want strict liability and personal liability for company directors.
Requires websites that host pornographic content to verify that users are adults before allowing access, protecting children from stumbling onto explicit material online.
What it means for you
If you're a parent, websites showing adult content would be legally required to check that your child is not the one accessing it — similar to how age checks work for alcohol or tobacco.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Early exposure to online pornography harms children and amounts to a form of child abuse. Age checks would limit their access.
Age verification can protect privacy. Users prove their age to a third party and then show a digital key to the site, so the site never learns their identity.
The bill has passed the Senate several times and has been studied extensively. Children need action now, and Parliament has delayed too long.
Critics say
Third-party age verification providers, often located outside Canada, could expose users' sensitive personal data to a second harm.
The definition of sexually explicit material is very broad and could unintentionally cover mainstream images.
Mandatory age checks raise concerns about freedom of expression and censorship, and some people distrust government action online.
Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act 2026, gives law enforcement faster access to information needed to investigate serious crimes, including child sexual exploitation, by requiring certain entities to provide data to authorities under specific legal conditions.
What it means for you
Police investigating crimes like child exploitation could get key information more quickly, potentially speeding up investigations and protecting vulnerable people — but it may also raise questions about privacy and government surveillance.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
Police and national security agencies say they cannot get digital evidence in time. Slow investigations into child sexual exploitation, extortion and organized crime can cause serious, ongoing harm to victims.
Canada is the only Five Eyes country and the only Western democracy without a comprehensive law requiring electronic service providers to build lawful access capabilities. Today, cooperation is largely voluntary and uneven.
Part 1 is narrowly targeted. It allows a yes-or-no confirmation of whether a provider serves a given identifier, and a production order for basic subscriber information such as name and address. It also updates rules for computer searches under warrant.
Critics say
subscriber information is highly protected, but the bill allows orders on a 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard used for similar orders in the Criminal Code. Critics also want judicial approval for voluntary disclosures.
Requiring companies to build interception capabilities creates back doors. Critics warn that hackers and foreign actors could exploit these, weakening encryption and exposing everyone's data.
Critics say blanket retention of metadata for up to a year would capture people not under suspicion, revealing sensitive information such as location. They argue this is disproportionate, and that the government has not shown existing tools are insufficient.
This bill calls on the federal government to take national action to prevent intimate partner violence, which includes abuse between romantic or family partners.
What it means for you
If passed, this could lead to new federal programs, policies, or funding aimed at reducing domestic violence and protecting Canadians from abuse by their partners.
SocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
Bill C-37 establishes a legal framework giving First Nations authority over water, drinking water, wastewater, and related infrastructure on their lands, allowing them to set their own water safety standards.
What it means for you
First Nations communities would gain the legal power to manage their own safe drinking water systems, helping to end the long-standing drinking water advisories that have affected many reserves.
SocialGovernanceEnvironmentalReconciliation
The debate · 6 points
Supporters say
The bill would give First Nations authority over drinking water and wastewater on their lands, affirming their inherent right to self-government.
It would set enforceable national drinking water standards and regulations, closing gaps in current protections.
It commits the federal government to predictable, long-term funding and to a First Nations-led water commission, building on $4.6 billion over five years and the lifting of 158 long-term water advisories since 2015.
Critics say
The bill defines First Nations lands as reserve lands only, which may leave out traditional territories and raise doubts about whether UNDRIP, including Article 25, fully applies.
Chiefs say they were not properly consulted on this version of the bill, and a treaty table agreed to with the Crown has not yet met.
Critics say the bill is weaker than the previous version, Bill C-61, and that it lacks true co-development with First Nations, which many chiefs have requested.
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.
Strengthens Canada's human trafficking laws by adding fines up to $100,000, requiring consecutive prison sentences, making it easier to prove trafficking occurred, and improving protections for victims who testify in court.
What it means for you
Traffickers would face heavier financial penalties and longer combined prison sentences, while victims would find it easier to report crimes and testify safely — including remotely, from outside the courthouse.
SocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
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.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen or expand the use of restitution orders, which require convicted offenders to repay victims for financial losses caused by their crimes.
What it means for you
If a community organization dealing with crime in front-line services suffered financial losses from crime, courts would have stronger tools to order the person convicted to pay them back.
SocialGovernance
The debate · 3 points
Supporters say
People who profit from human trafficking cause lasting harm that extends beyond individual victims to families, communities, and social services — they should be required to contribute financially to repairing that harm.
Recovery from trafficking is long and costly, involving mental health care, housing, addiction treatment, and employment support; restitution orders would help fund these real expenses rather than leaving them to survivors, charities, and taxpayers.
Frontline organizations providing survivor support operate under chronic funding pressure; requiring offenders to contribute to recovery costs recognizes the essential role these organizations play.
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.
Requires online platforms (social media, apps, gaming services) to prevent and remove fraudulent content, notify users who encountered it, and increases sentencing for identity theft targeting vulnerable people like seniors or those in poor health.
What it means for you
If you interact with a scam post or fraudulent ad online, the platform would be legally required to warn you. Fraudsters who target elderly or financially struggling Canadians would face harsher sentences.
SocialGovernance
No debate summary yet — we'll add the for/against once this bill is debated.
