Canada – Federal – 45th Parliament | Catholic Conscience †

Canada – Federal – 45th Parliament

Canada’s 45th Parliament opened May 26, 2025, under Prime Minister Mark Carney. As of September 20, 2025, both the House and the Senate in session.

Our most recent updates:

- October 13-19, 2025:
  - updated summaries and commentary relating to C-3, Amending the Citizenship Act, including amendments recommended by committee.
- October 5-12, 2025:
  - added summaries and commentary relating to:
    - Government bills C-2, C-8, and C-9 at 2nd reading. All three bills are now referred to committee.
    - recently-introduced Government bills C-10, respecting appointment of a Commissioner for “Modern Treaty” Implementation and C-11, respecting amendment of the Military Justice System to address accountability for sex crimes, etc.
    - added new Government bill C-12, relating to border security and immigration.

As of October 19, 2025, seventy-six bills had been introduced. (1)

Four bills had been passed by both Commons and Senate, and had received royal assent.
In the House of Commons, three government bills are at second reading, and four are being considered by committee. Thirty-two private bills have been been introduced, but remain outside the Order of Precedence. First debate is said to be expected about November 2025.
In the Senate, one government bill and six public bills are being considered by committee. Twenty-seven public bills are at 2nd reading. One bill has been passed by the Senate and forwarded to the House for consideration.

In view of our duty to participate in society, all federal bills should be of interest to Catholics. Bills of most immediate current concern might include:

Bill C-2, Strong Borders Act, which contemplates expansion of police powers of investigation and control.
Bill C-9, to amend Criminal Code provisions relating to hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious and cultural places.
Bill C-12, to amend numerous Acts to strengthen border security and control of immigration.
Bill C-218, to amend the Criminal Justice Act respecting Assisted Suicide regarding eligibility of individual suffering mental illness. This bill is not yet included in the Order of Precedence, but is consistent with Church teaching.
Bill C-227, national strategy for housing for young Canadians.
Bill S-2, amending the Indian Act.
Bill S-205, relating to corrections and release procedures for disadvantaged persons.
Bill S-206, national framework for basic livable income.
Bill S-209, restricting young people’s access to online pornography.
Bill S-212, regarding development of a national strategy for children and youth.
Bill S-218, proposing restrictions on invocation of the “notwithstanding” clause by the federal government.
Bill S-228, regarding forced sterilization as criminal assault.
Bill S-231, to enable advance directives for socially-assisted suicide (SAD).

(1) Excluding one pro forma bill in each of the House and Senate.

At the time the Parliament opened, the House of Commons included:

169 Liberals
144 Conservatives
22 members of the Bloc Quebecois
7 New Democrats
1 Green

Bill C-5: Free Trade, Labour Mobility, & Building Canada Acts (Royal Assent June 26, 2025)

Commons: 1^st reading 6 June 2025; 2^nd reading 16 June 2025; report and 3^rd reading complete 20 June 2025.

Senate: 1^st and 2^nd readings 25 June 2025; 3^rd reading 26 June 2025.

Sponsor(s): President of King’s Privy Council, Minister for Canada-US Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-5

Summary:

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act,to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. For goods, it provides that a good or service meeting provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements pertaining to the interprovincial movement of the good or service. For labour, it provides for recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act, to authorize the Governor in Council to define criteria for declaring projects to be in the national interest, and to add such to a list created by the Act. The Act provides that if such conditions are met, Ministers responsible for the project may set conditions for advancement of the projects, and must cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project each year. Factors to be included in determining whether a project is to be designated a national interest project include, without limitation, whether the project will:

strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
provide economic benefits;
have a high likelihood of success;
advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and Canada’s climate goals.

Vote:

Passed in the House by a vote of 306 – 31. Voting was strongly along party lines, with Liberals and Conservatives in favour; Bloc Quebecois, Green and NDP opposed.

Commentary:

Environmental groups have expressed concern that the bill may be used to shortcut through existing processes meant to protect the environment and create a “black box” of decision making. (see, e.g. https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/bill-c5-building-canada-act-analysis/)
Indigenous leaders have described C-5 as “colonization in 2025” (see, e.g., https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-summit-bill-c-5-bc-chiefs-1.7589279)

Implementation:

Under Part 2 of the Act, five initial projects have been declared to be “of national importance”, placed on a major projects list, and directed to a Major Projects Office which has undertaken to provide “clear and predictable regulatory pathways to attract global capital, accelerate innovation, and encourage domestic investment. By doing so, we will not only grow our economy but also protect Canadian industries from over-reliance on any single export market, strengthening our sovereignty and resilience.”

The five initial projects include”

LNG Canada Phase 2 – Kitimat, BC (LNG Canada)
This project would double LNG Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas, making it the second largest facility of its kind in the world. It is expected to attract $33B in private-sector capital to Canada, contribute to our GDP growth, and support jobs and economic growth in local communities. It will deliver low-carbon intensity Canadian energy to global markets and help diversify Canada’s trading partners – including those with increasing energy demands in Asia and Europe. The Major Projects Office will ensure that the final work on LNG Canada will create the pathway for other proponents of LNG projects that are strategic to the nation.

Darlington New Nuclear Project – Bowmanville, ON (Ontario Power Generation)
This project will make Canada the first G7 country to have an operational small modular reactor (SMR). Once complete, Darlington’s first of four planned SMR units would provide reliable, affordable, clean power to 300,000 homes, while supporting 200 high-paying jobs – in addition to 1,600 jobs during construction. The project has the potential to position Canada as a global leader in SMR technology for use across the country and for export as early as 2030.

Contrecoeur Terminal Container Project – Contrecoeur, QC (Montreal Port Authority)
This project will expand the Port of Montreal’s container capacity by approximately 60%, to give Canada the trading infrastructure it needs to keep goods moving, meet growing demand, and diversify trade routes. It will deploy AI capabilities to strengthen supply chains, create thousands of jobs, and generate lasting economic benefits across Québec and Canada.

McIlvenna Bay Foran Copper Mine Project – East-Central, SK (Foran Mining)
This project in one of Canada’s richest mineral belts will supply copper and zinc to strengthen Canada’s position as a global supplier of critical minerals for clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and modern infrastructure. It will create hundreds of jobs, boost local economies, and will be one of the lowest-emission operations of its kind.

Red Chris Mine expansion – Northwest, BC (Newmont Mining & Imperial Metals)
This major expansion project will extend the lifespan of the mine by over a decade, increase Canada’s annual copper production by over 15%, employ about 1,500 workers during operations, with a peak of approximately 1,800 workers during construction, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 70% when operational. Working in close collaboration with the Tahltan Nation, it is an important step in reconciliation and further developing the potential of Northern British Columbia and will strengthen Canada’s role as a reliable supplier of copper and other resources essential for global manufacturing and clean energy technologies. This mine is part of the proposed Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor. This corridor is being moved to the MPO for consideration, as it presents opportunities for critical minerals development, clean power transmission, Indigenous project leadership, and a potential new conservation area the size of Greece.

Bill C-6: Appropriation Act No.1, 2025-26 (Royal Assent June 26, 2025)

Commons: 1^st, 2^nd readings, report, and 3^rd reading complete 17 June 2025.

Senate: 1^st reading 18 June 2025; 2^nd reading 25 June 2025; 3^rd reading 26 June 2025.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, President of Treasury Board.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-6

Summary:

Appropriation Act No. 1 for 2025-26 authorizes $149 billion of the total funding of $488 billion projected by the government’s 2025-26 Main Estimates published May 28, 2025. The Act specifies that the funding is to be used only for purposes set out in Schedules attached to the Act.

Commentary:

Commentators have acknowledged that the appropriations are generally consistent with the 2025-26 Main Estimates. However, the effect of the appropriations on the federal deficit and national debt have been questioned. For example, Senator Elizabeth Marshall, a former Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador and member of the Senate Finance Committee, at 2^nd reading in the Senate, noted that:

As no budget has been tabled, estimated government revenues for the year are unknown. However, it can be seen from the 2025-26 Main Estimates that expenditures are increasing, and revenues are known to be decreasing. Thus a larger deficit can be expected for the year.
Government has a legislated debt ceiling of just over $2 trillion for the federal debt and the market debt of agent Crown corporations, as established by the Borrowing Authority Act. The initial ceiling, in 2017, was just over $1 trillion. Thus over the past eight years, the debt ceiling has doubled to just over $2 trillion. Actual debt has doubled also, from $918 billion in 2015 to $1.7 trillion at the beginning of 2024.15 months ago.
Moroever, both a forward-looking debt management strategty reports and backward-looking debt management reports have yet to be tabled.
Overall the government’s reluctance to provide Canadians and parliamentarians with current financial information is concerning. In May 2025, Fitch Ratings warned the federal government that too much deficit spending would adversely affect its debt ratings, and therefor its ability to borrow.
In June 2025, the OECD said that Canada will be one of the developed world’s hardest-hit economies in 2025 and 2026.

See for example https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/marshall-elizabeth/interventions/667219/52

Vote:

Passed in the House by a vote of 194 – 141. Voting was strongly along party lines, with Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, NDP, and Green in favour; Conservatives opposed.

Bill C-7: Appropriation Act No.2, 2025-26 – Defense and Communications (Royal Assent June 26, 2025)

Bill C-202: Protecting Supply Management in Trade War (Royal Assent June 26, 2025)

Bill C-2: Strong Borders Act (debated at 2nd reading, 16 and 17 September, 2025)

Commons: 1^st reading 3 June 2025; debate at 2^nd reading continues.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Public Safety.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-2

Summary:

In addition to technical amendments relating to law enforcement, the Act proposes:

to expand the authority of Canada Post to open mail, including letters.
to expand duties of the Coast Guard to include activities related to security, and authorizes collection, analysis, and disclosure of information by the Coast Guard.
to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations personal information under the Ministry’s control.
to amend the authority of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration relating to review of claims for refugee protection.
to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to increase monetary penalties for related criminal offenses.
to amend the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to revise circumstances under which sex offenders are required to report and the information that must be provided, and authorize recording of sex offenders’ physical characteristics.
to amend the Criminal Code to facilitate access to information that will assist in investigation of federal offenses, specify circumstances under which police may obtain evidence in emergencies, and allow judges to authorize police to request telecommunications (e.g. internet) service providers to produce content and subscriber date.
to allow the Minister of Justice to cooperate with other agencies, including foreign agencies, to compel disclosure of information relating to telecommunications (e.g. internet) content or service providers.
to permit collection and use by specified persons and entities of personal information without individuals’ knowledge or consent for the purpose of detecting or deterring money laundering, terrorist activity, or sanctions, “or for a consistent purpose.”

Commentary:

In debate, many members agreed that a number of the bill’s provisions are laudable. However, several members expressed concern about the breadth of powers being accorded to law enforcement officers. For example, Member Michelle Garner (Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill) noted that if passed, the bill:

…would allow CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal info from online service providers without a warrant based only on vague suspicions of potential crime or legal breaches of any act of Parliament. Whether or not a Canadian uses an online service, where they use it and when they use it are personal information, and the government has not provided a charter statement for the same.

With Bill C-2, combined with Bill C-63, the government could target whatever it deems to be spreading hateful content. Bill C-2 would combine with Bill C-63 to essentially form Voltron-type censorship. The government has not indicated what policy concerns, aside from vague references to security, these provisions are needed for. These snooping provisions are a massive poison pill that should not have been included in this bill.

Public Safety Minister Anandasangaree, the bill’s sponsor, replied that:

The issue around lawful access requires modernization in Canada. We are the only Five Eyes and G7 country that does not have a lawful access regime. Every other country in our category has provisions to ensure that as new technology emerges, new techniques are available for law enforcement. Having said that, this bill does not violate the civil liberties or rights of individual Canadians. It is subject to judicial oversight. This bill was only introduced two days ago. There will be a charter statement coming, and there will be a robust debate on this issue.

Some public commentators have expressed concern that aspects of the bill might violate Charter rights. See for example https://fipa.bc.ca/nm/commentary-bill-c-2-w/robert-diab and https://citizenlab.ca/2025/06/a-preliminary-analysis-of-bill-c-2/.

During debate at second reading, Members questioned:

The competence of the current government to protect Canadians’ data privacy
Infringement on Canadian civil liberties
The relationship of border security to immigration and asylum, and the effects of such concerns on individual provinces
A preference for addressing sentencing and enforcement of existing laws, rather than new encroachments on civil liberties
Concern for expansion of searches and investigations without warrants
Adequacy of the bill’s provisions for tracking sex offenders

At least one NDP member suggested scrapping the entire “omnibus bill, a 140-page bill, stripping Canadians of their basic charter rights and stripping due process, all in the name of border security,” and replace it with specifically-targeted legislation. “If the government wants to tackle safer borders, it should bring forward a bill that specifically talks about that.”

Bill C-3: Amending the Citizenship Act (at report stage with recommended amendments)

Last updated 8 October 2025.

Commons: Consideration at committee completed October 9, 2025. Reported out of committee with amendments.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-3

Summary:

Among other things, the Act proposes:

To ensure that citizenship is conferred on persons born to Canadian parents outside Canada and to persons born outside Canada after the first generation, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth.
To confer citizenship on persons adopted by Canadians.

Commentary

At second reading:

The Bloc Quebecois voiced support, noting that bill the corrects injustices to women and children, among others.

Member Dan Mazier (Riding Mountain, CPC) described the bill as:

a very familiar piece of legislation to the House that has been brought back from previous parliaments… It is the same broken car that the Liberals tried to drive through the House last year with a different coat of paint. Let us be clear that it was originally Conservative legislation from the Senate. Bill S-245 was a private member’s bill containing provisions to address lost Canadians. The Conservatives were supportive of the original substance of that bill, but thanks to the Liberal government, the bill was significantly amended, and it eventually stalled at report stage. In May 2024, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-71, which drastically went beyond the original scope of Bill S-245. Therefore, we started with Bill S-245, then we had Bill C-71 and now we are dealing with Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 has three separate pieces of information that must be understood individually:

The first part is citizenship by descent. We may not agree on everything in this House, but I believe we can all agree that becoming a Canadian citizen is a privilege. However, as written, Bill C-3 undermines Canadian citizenship. In fact, Canada has important safeguards in place that protect our citizenship, like the first-generation limit. I want to stress that we have policy like this for a reason. As my colleagues have mentioned, at the height of the 2006 conflict, Lebanese Canadians living in Lebanon looked to the Canadian government for help, and Canada answered the call, spending $94 million to successfully evacuate 15,000 Canadians to safety. Despite living in Lebanon full time prior to the conflict and having little connection to Canada, they still benefited from their Canadian citizenship and became known as Canadians of convenience. Following a ceasefire in the conflict, many Lebanese Canadians immediately returned to Lebanon. This was a wake-up call for Canada, and in 2009, the previous Conservative government responded with implementing the first-generation limit. This reasonable measure set out that only the first generation of children born abroad to Canadian citizens could automatically obtain citizenship.

Members may be shocked to learn that this safeguard for Canadian citizenship against Canadians of convenience would be eliminated by Liberal Bill C-3, as written. The Liberals seek to replace this safeguard to obtaining citizenship by descent with something called a substantial connection requirement. This extremely weak requirement simply means that parents must prove they spent 1,095 non-consecutive days physically in Canada before the birth of their child. This legislation would not even require a criminal record check. The Liberals believe that parents spending a few weeks or months spread out over decades is enough of a substantial connection to automatically extend citizenship to multiple generations of people born outside of Canada. We still do not understand what evidence would be required as proof that parents spent just over 1,000 days in Canada at any point in their life. Through Bill C-3, the Liberal government could be opening Canadian citizenship to people with criminal records or to individuals who may not even realize they could claim Canadian citizenship in the first place…

When the previous version of this legislation was studied, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that as many as 115,000 new citizens outside of Canada could be created. According to the National Post, “The government has no idea how many people will be automatically granted citizenship if the legislation is passed.” Why would the Liberal government create a new system with a potentially limitless chain of migration? This is deeply concerning, but after 10 years of the Liberals destroying our immigration system, we cannot be surprised.

The second part of Bill C-3, which the Conservatives do support, is the adopted children provision. Right now, provisions in the Citizenship Act state that when a Canadian citizen adopts a person born outside of Canada, the parent would need to start a lengthy process of applying for a child’s permanent residence. Instead, this bill would remove an unnecessary burden on adoptive parents and treat an adopted person as if they were born here in Canada, automatically granting Canadian citizenship to the child. This is a simple and reasonable approach to achieving equal treatment for adopted children, and the Conservatives support it.

Third, we come to the restoration of citizenship to lost Canadians. As a result of compounding legislation and amendments to section 8 of the Citizenship Act, a group of people born to Canadian parents between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, had to apply to reinstate their citizenship before turning 28 years old. Those who did not apply to reinstate their citizenship lost it, despite being raised in Canada, going to school here and starting their families here. The Conservatives support the provisions in Bill C-3 to correct this error.

Canadians are paying the price for the Liberals’ out-of-control immigration policies. Let me be clear. Immigration is important to our country, but the government must have control over it. Right now, the Liberals have zero control over their immigration policy. Effective immigration policy should be tied to outcomes, and it should consider the supply of housing, health care and jobs. This is important not only for Canadians who are trying to buy a house, find a job and get a family doctor; it is equally important for newcomers. It is wrong to set immigrants up for failure in a country that does not have the capacity to support them. Unfortunately, the Liberals have lost complete control over immigration.

Let us examine health care, for example. Last year, the Liberals brought in nearly a half a million permanent immigrants. Meanwhile, 6.5 million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The Liberals see no problem adding hundreds of thousands of new patients to a health care system that is already overburdened. Emergency room closures are occurring on a regular basis while health care workers are burnt out from working millions of hours of overtime. Canada is currently short at least 23,000 family doctors and 60,000 registered nurses, with these numbers set to dramatically increase in the next few years. Someone does not need an economics degree to understand that the increasing demand on our health care system through unfocused immigration while the supply of capacity is collapsing is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee that our health care system is only going to get worse under the Liberal government’s failed immigration policy.

The Liberals are not just driving up demand through their failed immigration policy; they have failed to build capacity too. While the government adds record demand to our health care system, it is restricting the supply of qualified health care professionals from working. According to the health minister‘s own department, of the 200,000 internationally trained health professionals employed in Canada, 80,000 are not working in their field. Eighty thousand internationally trained health care professionals who immigrated to Canada thinking there was a place for them to contribute to our overwhelmed health care system are being blocked from working…

The Conservatives know that the parts of Bill C-3 have potential, but we cannot support rushed Liberal legislation that is so poorly thought out. The Conservatives will make recommendations to improve this legislation and implement real safeguards to strengthen the citizenship we are so blessed to have.

Consideration at Committee:

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommended several amendments for consideration at report stage, including:

imposing conditions in which persons 18 or older can be considered to qualify for citizenship born outside Canada and 18, including knowledge of Canada and lack of security concerns; and
requiring the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to report to Parliament at the end of each fiscal year on the number of persons in respect of whom a requirement to undergo a security assessment was waived, and the reasons for which assessment was waived.

Bill C-4: Making Life More Affordable (passed to Finance Committee for consideration June 12, 2025)

Commons: 1^streading 5 June 2025, 2^nd reading 12 June 2025, sent for consideration by Finance Committee (no activity as of 14 August 2025).

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Public Safety.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-4

Summary:

Among other things, the Act proposes:

To amend the Income Tax Act to reduce the marginal personal income tax rate on the lowest bracket by ½% to 14.5% for the 2025 taxation year and to 14% for the 2026 and subsequent tax years.
To amend the Excise Act and related Regulations to implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.
To repeal Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations.
To amend the Elections Act to make changes to requirements for political parties’ policies for protection of personal information, namely releasing parties from the requirement to disclose their privacy policies to Elections Canada, while requiring them to state their policies clearly online, and allowing them to use personal information in accordance with their parties.

Commentary

Minister of Finance & Revenue Francios-Philippe Champagne highlighted the proposed elimination of HST for the first $1M in purchase price for first-time home buyers, and reduction of HST for the next $500,000, offering savings up to $50k for a first home. The provision complements the existing first-home tax savings plan and RRSP home buyers’ plan. In addition, the government undertakes to develop a ‘credible plan’ to build more homes, ensuring that the plan provides a “true team Canada approach” to homebuilding.
Several parties questioned the wisdom of passing the bill in absence of a budget or budget proposal.
Conservative MP Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park – Fort Saskatchewan) called for removal of barriers to employment, such as payroll taxes and blockage of major private-sector projects, such as natural resources extraction. He also noted that removal of consumer carbon taxes but retention industrial carbon taxes would result in passthrough to consumers anyway.
Conservative MP Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West) noted that the proposed tax cut works out to approximately $1.50 a day, while the government’s recent main estimates call for allocation of an additional extra $26 billion for private-sector consultants such as McKinsey, GC Strategies, and others. The amount added for consultants works out to about $1,400 per household, while the middle-class tax cut would be about $800 per household.
NDP MP Lori Idlout (Nunavut) questioned why an act aimed at ameliorating the cost of living would include proposed amendments of the Elections Act.
Homeowner Xingchen Li of Ontario submitted a brief to the finance committee proposing that GST relief offered by the act be extended to individuals who have previously owned and occupied a home but were compelled to sell due to a work-related relocation, as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act (“eligible relocation”).
Privacy Commissioner submitted a brief to the finance committee expressing concern that political parties should be subject to privacy rules substantially similar to requirements set for the public and private sectors in the Privacy Act and PIPEDA, at the same time being adapted to the unique role played by political parties in the democratic process, observing that “Canadians need and deserve a privacy regime for political parties that goes further than self-regulation and provides meaningful standards and oversight to protect electors’ fundamental right to privacy.”

Bill C-8: Respecting Cyber Security (referred to Public Safety and National Security Committee)

Commons: Passed second reading 3 October 2025, referred to standing committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Last update: 8 October 2025

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Public Safety.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-8

Summary:

The Act proposes:

To amend the Telecommunications Act to:
- add promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.
- establish an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance and rules for judicial review.
To enact a Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of activities within the legislative authority of Parliament.

It also proposes, among other things,

- authorizing the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;
- authorizing the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;
- requiring designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;
- providing for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and
- authorizing enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.

Commentary

At second reading the bill’s sponsor, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree explained that Canada is facing unprecedented cyber-threats across all sectors of society:

Government, industry, academia and individuals have been targeted by increasingly sophisticated threats, including the malicious use of artificial intelligence. The Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, has said cybercrime is now the most prevalent and pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. The CSE’s cyber centre has warned us of the many risks of cyber-threats, with ransomware at the top of that list… Canada must be better prepared to deal with these threats to protect Canadians, our critical infrastructure and our economy and to ensure Canada remains secure, competitive and connected. Cyber-threats to Canada are evolving rapidly, increasing in size and technical sophistication every day…

Bill C-8 would help promote increased cybersecurity across four major sectors: finance, telecommunications, energy and transportation.

Part 1 would amend the Telecommunications Act to enshrine security as a policy objective and bring the security framework regulating the sector in line with those of other critical infrastructure. The amendments to the Telecommunications Act would enable the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to take specific actions to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. This change would enable the government to act quickly in an industry where milliseconds make all the difference between security and risk. When necessary, this means that Canadian telcos could be prohibited from using products or services from high-risk suppliers, which would prevent these risks from being passed on to users.

Second, Bill C-8 would introduce the new critical cyber systems protection act, which would legally compel designated operators to protect their critical cyber systems. Currently, the list of vital services and systems is composed of the Canadian telecommunications services, banking systems and other federally regulated industries, such as energy and transportation. However, the Governor in Council may also add new vital services and systems if needed. This part of the bill would provide the tools the government needs to take further action to address a range of vulnerabilities. To do so, designated operators of vital services and systems would be obligated to develop and implement cybersecurity programs, mitigate supply chain and third party risk, and comply with cybersecurity directions. It would also increase the sharing of information on cyber-threats by requiring the reporting of cybersecurity incidents above a certain threshold. Currently, there are no such legal requirements for industry to share information on cyber-incidents and no legal mechanism for the government to compel action in the face of known threats or vulnerabilities.

Bill C-8 would further protect Canadians’ fundamental rights under the Privacy Act. While Canadians’ privacy is already protected through a number of constitutional and legislative instruments, this legislation would provide greater certainty to Canadians that their privacy and personal information will be protected. It is also now clear that confidential information must continue to be treated as such when it is necessary for it to be shared, and its recipients must similarly be respectful of that confidentiality.

The bill provides assurances to Canadians that directions issued under both part 1 and part 2 of the legislation would not be used to engage in surveillance or to intercept private communications. This responds directly to the concerns we heard from civil liberty groups. The act also includes provisions to increase the government’s transparency and accountability while still balancing the need for confidentiality, quick action and the public’s desire for transparency. The bill includes an obligation for the government to notify the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency within 90 days after an order or direction is made. Furthermore, annual reports to Parliament would need to include information such as the number of orders or directions that were issued and the number of impacted operators.

Civil liberties groups and industry experts also expressed concerns about the new broader powers granted to the government under former Bill C-26. While the Governor in Council already has checks and balances on their powers, criteria qualifying the government’s order-making and direction-making powers are expected to prevent their misuse and improve accountability. In fact, the addition of the reasonableness standard and relevant factors for consideration before issuing an order or direction, such as operational, financial and public safety impacts, would provide the Governor in Council with further clarity and fairness around the use of these new powers. Bill C-8 would provide transparency and accountability to Canadians. It would also provide further reassurances to Canadians that their privacy and personal information will be protected.

Member Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, CPC): asked what effect additional regulatory burdens would have on small businesses, especially as the trend of legislation under the current government is to increase everything, imposing “death by a thousand cuts.” Minister Anandasangaree responded that Bill C-8 would in fact help small businesses by preventing their systems from being shut down by cyber attack.

Member Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, BQ): indicated that the Bloc Quebecois would support the bill, and asked whether the government would be open to the idea of further improving it through amendments offered by the Bloc? Minister Anandsangaree responded that although a lot of work went into the bill’s predecessor in the previous Parliament, and that a number of changes were made, the government would always be open to ensuring the bill is strengthened. The privacy rights of Canadians are essential to the government, and the government is bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks to ensure close collaboration with opposition parties to strengthen and pass this bill.

Bill C-9: Hate Propaganda, Hate Crimes, Access to Religious and Cultural Places (Referred to Committee)

Commons: Introduction and passed 2nd reading 1 October 2025. Referred to standing committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Justice.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-9

Summary:

The Act proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things,

(a) repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;

(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;

(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;

(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and

(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Commentary

According to Bill C-9’s sponsor, Justice Minister Sean Fraser, during his introduction at last week’s second reading,

…One of the great promises of Canada is the right of its citizens to live freely, regardless of the colour of their skin, the God they pray to, their gender identity or the person they love…

It is important we understand the scale of what we have observed in Canada’s recent history. Nearly 5,000 hate crimes are officially reported by law enforcement annually in this country. We know, through conversations with affected communities, that the true number is much, much higher. The under-reporting of hate crimes is in and of itself a symptom of a societal problem: that people may not have faith that the criminal law is actually equipped to deal with the circumstances they face so routinely in their communities.

It troubles me greatly when I open the newspapers and see such stories. When I meet with Jewish Canadians, they tell me that they are beginning to question whether they have a place in this country, as a result of the hate they have been subjected to. I think about what I have witnessed in my own community, with local police laying charges for the advocating of genocide toward Jewish Canadians. Recently in my home province of Nova Scotia, synagogues have been desecrated with hate symbols that seek to intimidate people of the Jewish faith against practising their religion. The National Holocaust Monument has been desecrated. Is there no limit to indecency?

There are many communities that are impacted. I think about Muslim Canadians, who are suffering from a wave of Islamophobia that we must address. I have met with people and visited their mosques, people who have told me what it is like to be harassed in their communities and told me about the fear they have when they seek to gather and pray…

This is completely unacceptable. .. People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…

I fear that, too often, we, as Canadians, are failing our neighbours. We should seek to be better neighbours. We are responsible, in my view, not only for the acts that we ourselves commit, but for the injustices that we see and accept through our acquiescence and through our inaction. When we see instances of hate in our community, we have a duty to condemn them, to speak up and to show support for our fellow Canadians. It should not be too much to ask that our neighbours take care of one another. Should we adopt that approach, we will collectively be better off.³

Debate at second reading followed predictably partisan lines.

While commending the objectives of protecting vulnerable communities and supporting police and prosecutors, Conservative members questioned:
- Why the bill proposes to define hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”, rather than adopting the stricter standard adopted by the Supreme Court in Regina v. Keegstra of “extreme detestation and extreme vilification.” The party further questioned why the qualifier “extreme manifestations” had been dropped.
- Why it is proposed to remove the existing requirement that the relevant provincial Attorney General consent to the laying of hate charges.
- Why attacks against Christianity within Canada had not be mentioned by the government. When another member laughed at this question, a Conservative member reminded the House that between May 2021 and December 2023 thirty-three Christian churches had been burned in Canada, and that the previous Parliament had declined to condemn the attacks, along with crimes against other religious groups.
- Why it was not proposed to refine existing laws, rather than adding a new and confusing piece of legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois questioned failure of the proposal to repeal a religious exemption from hate speech, where statements are based on religious texts.

The Green party questioned why, when several “strong pieces” of hate legislation already exist, additional strictures tied to a new definition of “hatred” are proposed, since “[I]t does not make sense to add new legislation where it is not needed” and thereby make things more confusing.

The Government replied that it welcomed all good-faith criticism, and wished to adapt the bill so that all parties are satisfied. However, several of the objections were stated to be suspected of being based on bad faith.

In the press, Catholic commentators expressed concern over the apparent lack of concern on the part of the federal government toward the more than 300 arsons and acts of vandalism perpetrated against Christian churches since 2021.⁴

Points to Ponder

What is the best way for a society to combat hate? Is it preferable to add laws attempting to carefully circumscribe all combinations and permutations of action and mental states, or to rely on simpler and more general already-existing law?
- Canada Criminal Code Section 434, for example, specifies that “Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” This would cover churches and other places of worship, as well as parked cars, trash bins, and all other forms of property.
  - Which is more difficult to prove? That a fire was intentionally or recklessly set, or that it was set with “an emotion of detestation or vilification (extreme or otherwise) that is stronger than disdain or dislike?”
  - Would it make sense, in addition or as an alternative to adding new laws, to enforce existing laws? It is charged, for example, that authorities declined to take serious action to investigate or prosecute several of the fires that destroyed Canadian Catholic churches between 2021 and 2023.⁶
- Do there exist other ways to combat hate, in addition or as an alternative to criminal legislation?
  - For example, should public schools teach children that burning churches and other places of worship, or barring worshippers from entering, is wrong?
  - Does or could the Catholic Church have any role to play in combatting hate?
- Like arson, murder – and inciting others to commit murder or other forms of violence – is also already illegal in many jurisdictions. Still, it is reported that following the murder of activist Charlie Kirk in September 2025, a number of public figures openly praised the killing⁶ in terms that might well be construed as promoting the killing of individuals who speak publicly against their own ideas. Such figures included, for example:
  - A professor of political science and religion at the University of Toronto, who shared a post citing the killing as “honestly too good for so many of you fascist c—ts.”
  - A University of Calgary associate professor, who posted comments including “Bullseye” and “Charlie Kirk no longer exists,” together with an emoji of a laughing face.
  - The province of Manitoba’s Minister of Families, who shared a post stating that “I extend absolutely no empathy for people like that.”Do such statements fall as “hate speech,” or as motivated by hatred, within the strictures of the proposed law, or any other? To the extent that they incite further violence, should such statements be curtailed?

As noted above, concerns have been stated about the apparent governmental indifference to crimes against Christian communities. In introducing and justifying the bill, however, Minister Fraser stated, among other things, that “People do not feel safe to practice their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples…”³
- Most dictionaries accept that a “church” is a place of Christian worship, or a body of Christian believers.
  - Is it important that Catholics and other Christians respect truth and fairness in argument?
  - If so, is the fact that the Minister led his list of worship houses with churches relevant?

Sources:

Bill C-10: Appointing Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation (Second Reading)

Commons: Introduction and 1st reading 25 September 2025. Debated 7 October 2025 at 2nd reading. Remains at 2nd reading in Commons.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-10

Summary:

Whereas the Government is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership; and whereas the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights are at the core of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and are fundamental to shaping the country…

Whereas modern treaties are living documents capable of evolving over time; are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all Canadians;

Whereas… the implementation of modern treaties requires a whole-of-government approach… and

Whereas the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements…

This entirely new enactment provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of government institutions related to the implementation of modern treaties. It also establishes the Office of the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner in the fulfillment of their mandate and the exercise of their powers and the performance of their duties and functions. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mandate and Powers

The Bill proposes that:

The Commissioner would rank as, and have all the powers of, a deputy head of a department. The Commissioner must independently exercise their powers and perform their duties and functions set out in this Act or any other Act of Parliament for the purpose of assessing whether the activities of any government institution related to the implementation of modern treaties are consistent with the objectives of:

(a) strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous modern treaty partners;

(b) fulfilling the Government of Canada’s obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties, these obligations and objectives being interpreted in a broad and purposive manner; and

Commentary

At 2nd reading,

The bill’s sponsor Minister Rebecca Alty stated that the bill was introduced with the support and guidance of modern treaty and self-governing partners, that it would lead to a stronger, more prosperous future for modern treaty partners and everyone in Canada, that modern treaty partners across the country have been strong advocates for this legislation, and since she became minister, the bill has been consistently raised as something they want passed quickly, in order to help guarantee that governments are consistently held accountable, not only in words but also action.

Minister Alty noted that modern treaties have been fundamental to advancing reconciliation and shared economic prosperity with indigenous peoples for half a century, and that progress is possible when there is real partnership and honest efforts, built on a solid foundation of respect and reliability. The bill has been drafted to enable the appointment of an independent agent of Parliament tasked with holding the government accountable regarding its commitments, obligations and relationships arising from modern treaties.

The Minister explained that “modern treaties” were completed between first nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders, the federal government, and often provinces and territories. Examples of the types of rights and benefits addressed by such treaties are ownership of lands, self-government or employment. As explained by the Minister, the era of modern treaties began after the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision in the Nisga’a Nation’s Calder case, acknowledging the existence of aboriginal title for the first time. This historic decision paved the way for modern treaties, recognizing indigenous peoples’ inherent right to their lands. The first treaty was signed in Quebec, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement marked a turning point in Crown-indigenous relations, laying the groundwork for many modern treaties that followed. Studies have shown that indigenous communities that sign modern treaties see improved socio-economic outcomes, including increased average annual incomes, reduced income inequality and higher educational attainment.

Today, there are 27 modern treaties in Canada covering more than 90 communities. As a modern treaty partner, Canada has made progress in upholding its commitments, but we recognize that more work needs to be done. For over 20 years, modern treaty partners have been calling for greater oversight to hold the federal government accountable to its modern treaty obligations. This includes calls to develop a federal implementation policy. One of the main reasons for this policy is to address a general lack of awareness, understanding and action regarding modern treaty relationships, objectives and obligations on the part of the federal government. That is why, in February 2023, the Government of Canada took a step forward by launching Canada’s collaborative modern treaty implementation policy to advance treaty objectives and strengthening intergovernmental relationships by guiding government departments and promoting action, awareness and understanding to address the legacy of colonialism and transform federal culture and procedures.

As part of this policy, and intergovernmental leaders’ forum was established in 2023. This allowed the Prime Minister, federal ministers and modern treaty and self-government leadership to come together and collaborate on shared priorities. Shortly after the collaborative modern treaty implementation policy came into effect, the government and modern treaty partners began taking steps to create the oversight mechanism. We achieved that goal by proposing the creation of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

As an Agent of Parliament, the commissioner would be independent of the government, reporting to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament. This would provide a unique opportunity to establish a new parliamentary institution focused solely on modern treaties. Some of the commissioner’s key roles and responsibilities would include providing independent and expert oversight of any activity carried out by the government relating to the implementation of modern treaties. They would seek to ensure the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties. They would report to Parliament to hold the government accountable to its modern treaty obligations. They would be independent, objective and impartial in the execution of their mandate and would have expert knowledge of modern treaties. They would have the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out their mandates. Finally, they would commit to upholding the spirit and intent of the agreements.

Member Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, CPC) noted that although two self-government agreements have been signed within the last 10 years, no modern treaties have been signed during that period. Moreover, during that period numerous Auditor General reports have questioned the government’s performance in treaty implementation. As the minister said, indigenous leaders are calling for more oversight, which the CPC supports, and that the government has not been living up to its promises. “Why not hold the minister’s department accountable instead of creating new bureaucracy?

“How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations managed this internally? I know she is new. I get that she was elected just a few months ago, but this question still remains: How is a report from the new commissioner’s office going to change things when dozens of Auditor General’s reports on the failures of government have resulted in nothing moving forward?

“The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits of treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements, the implementation of them, and treaty land entitlements. Some of the audits include the 2005 report on the federal government meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the comprehensive “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” from 2013, and the 2016 report “Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement”. This does not even include the 14 Auditor General reports produced since 2015 on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis.

“Where are those reports? Has every government department been addressing the concerns tabled by the Auditor General? This is why indigenous leaders are calling for this legislation. Yes, they want to see more oversight, absolutely, but we think the failure is on the government. We think the government itself, within the bureaucracies, and the ministers themselves have not been pushing departments hard enough to live up to these modern treaties… there is still no collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, which happened in 2023…

“Here is another crucial point. Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new dollars going into bureaucracies. It is a question of whether current officials are doing their jobs, whether existing departments are held accountable and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced. However, here we are today talking about a new office, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, a multi-million dollar bureaucracy intended to monitor, oversee and report on implementation, an office that would not be entirely accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, government and treaty partners would decide when audits are conducted and how, not Parliament. Reports would be tabled by the minister a few weeks after they receive them, but Parliament would not have the power to initiate audits of the government’s handling of modern treaty implementation. With respect, that is the wrong approach. We do not need more bureaucrats…

“Since the creation of these offices, as I have said before, no modern treaties have been established by the government. There are six entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of these treaties, and now we are supposed to believe that finally we have the magic bullet that will solve it all. Again, maybe the answer is to start firing those who are not doing their jobs, who are not living up to the commitments the government signed and is obliged to do. There are reports creating dust on shelves. Why are we not just doing what those reports have outlined? We need ministers and officials to take responsibility for obligations we already have, whether in modern treaties, self-government provisions or historic agreements.”

Member Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) noted that the Minister had said in her speech that modern treaties are good for communities in terms of economic development and household income. This would create an inequality between first nations that have access to modern treaties and those that do not. In his opinion, the minister should prioritize implementing new modern treaties. What has her department been doing in that regard? The commissioner position is important, but it seems people have been calling for it for 20 years. Why did it take so long? Why are more modern treaties not being signed?

Member Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) stated that members of the Maa-nulth nations, who have signed a treaty, have said this an essential oversight mechanism to help ensure the effective and timely implementation of modern-day treaties in terms of nation-to-nation, government-to-government and indigenous-to-Crown relations. The NDP how the bill be be moved with all parties in this House to fast-track this legislation. Can the minister identify the conversations she is having with all parties so that we can move this legislation forward immediately? The Minister declined to answer the question directly.

Member Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, CPC) noted that defining aboriginal rights and title is a main part of treaty negotiation, versus extinguishing them, and asked whether there is a reason that aboriginal rights and title are not mentioned in Bill C-10. The Minister replied that the modern treaties speak to different issues, and the commissioner would be reporting on those issues, but there is no need to identify everything in the modern treaties. The commissioner would ensure they are being implemented.

Member Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Green) asked Mr. Schmale to reconsider. She noted that there are many reasons that those nations in this country, the indigenous nations that form the 26 modern treaties that have been signed and negotiated, have waited too long, and that a predecessor bill was allowed to die on the Order Paper. She saw no point in going back over which parties are to blame for that, but suggested that all parties must come together and get the bill passed. She asked whether Mr. Schmale could agree?

Points to Ponder

The language of the bill seems to imply that a Commissioner is to be appointed solely with respect to Crown-Indigenous relations. Is that implication supported by the proposed text of the Bill? Note Definition of “modern treaty” in section 2 of the bill.

Bill C-11: Military Justice Modernization Act (referred to National Defence committee)

Commons: Passed second reading and passed to committee (National Defence) 10 October 2025.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of National Defence.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-11

Summary:

The Bill states that:

It would amend provisions of the National Defence Act that relate to the military justice system in response to the Report of the Third Independent Review Authority to the Minister of National Defence and the Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

In response to those reports, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,

(a) modify the process for appointing the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Director of Defence Counsel Services with a view to enhancing their independence;

(b) affirm the Judge Advocate General’s respect for the independence of authorities in the military justice system in the exercise of the Judge Advocate General’s superintendence of the administration of military justice;

(c) remove the court martial’s jurisdiction to try a person in relation to an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;

(d) remove the Canadian Armed Forces’ authority to investigate an offence under the Criminal Code that is alleged to have been committed in Canada and that is of a sexual nature or committed for a sexual purpose;

(e) expand the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge;

(f) expand the class of persons who may make an interference complaint and provide that a member of the military police or person performing policing duties or functions under the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal’s supervision must make such a complaint in certain circumstances; and

(g) change the title of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal to the Provost Marshal General.

In addition, the enactment amends the National Defence Act to remove military judges from the summary hearing system and to provide that, in the context of a service offence, an individual acting on behalf of a victim may request that a victim’s liaison officer be appointed to assist them.

It further amends that Act to harmonize the sex offender information and publication ban provisions with the amendments made to the Criminal Code in An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, provide superior courts of criminal jurisdiction with the jurisdiction to hear applications for an exemption in respect of orders to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act made under the National Defence Act and applications to vary the duration of such orders.

Commentary:

At second reading the Bill’s sponsor, Defence Minister David McGinty, stated that:

Simply put, this legislation is about the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is about ensuring their safety… It is our responsibility to foster an environment where they feel protected, respected and empowered to serve, free from all behaviours that harm our people, threaten morale and undermine team cohesion, including the reprehensible act of sexual misconduct. Eradicating these behaviours is essential to our operational effectiveness, to recruitment and to retention, and above all, it is the right thing to do.

Through Bill C-11, we are proposing a range of important changes to the National Defence Act, which are designed to support this essential work. Canada’s military justice system must not only reflect the values of fairness, accountability and respect, but also uphold the trust Canadians place in the institutions that serve them. Through Bill C-11, we would fulfill the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Arbour and Fish, and we are taking decisive steps to rebuild and reinforce trust within the Canadian Armed Forces.

First, this bill would remove CAF jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. With this bill, civilian authorities would have the exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute these offences.

Second, Bill C-11 would act on eight key recommendations outlined by former Supreme Court justice Fish in his third independent review. This includes establishing stronger, more transparent appointment processes for senior CAF members who play crucial roles in the military justice system. We are modifying the appointment process and the tenure for the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services by, first, making them Governor in Council appointees and by, second, changing the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services’ terms to a fixed non-renewable term of up to seven years. We are also modifying the process and authority for the appointment of the Canadian Forces provost marshal, appointed by the Governor in Council, and, finally, changing the title from Canadian Forces provost marshal to provost marshal general to align with the title of other senior designations in the CAF, such as the surgeon general, the chaplain general and the judge advocate general.

Third, Bill C-11 builds on supports provided under the Declaration of Victims Rights by expanding access to victim liaison officers to individuals acting on behalf of a victim…

Among other things, we are making critical changes to how we screen new recruits, how we manage Canada’s two military colleges and how we collect, retain and use data on workplace harassment. For example, we have instituted a probationary period for new recruits, which allows applicants to enrol and begin their training while the administrative work related to their application file is completed. During this probationary period, applicants must pass the required security clearance check, meet medical standards and show that they live by the CAF’s ethics and values. We need to ensure that our military better reflects the country it serves, drawing from the very best people Canada has to offer.

Member James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, Conservative) pointed out that former Liberal ministers contributed to cover-ups of sexual misconduct at the highest levels, and noted that this might trust in the current proposal.

Member Marie-Helene Gaudreau (Laurentides-Labelle, BQ) said that the Bloc agrees “that it is about time” for this bill.

Bill C-12: Border and Immigration Security (at 2nd reading, 8 October 2025)

Commons: Introduction and 1st reading 8 October 2025. Awaits second reading.

Sponsor(s): Government Bill, Minister of Public Safety.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-12

Summary:

The Bill, which at 1st reading comprised 11 parts and was 70 pages long, proposes amendments to the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Cannabis Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the Financial Institutions Act, and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, including:

Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with facilities free of charge for carrying out any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of that Act and other Acts of Parliament and to provide officers of that Agency with access at certain locations to goods destined for export. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a new temporary accelerated scheduling pathway that allows the Minister of Health to add precursor chemicals to Schedule V to that Act. It also makes related amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations.
Part 3 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Cannabis Act to confirm that the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, make regulations exempting members of law enforcement from the application of any provision of the Criminal Code that creates drug-related inchoate offences when they are undertaking lawful investigations.
Part 4 amends the Oceans Act to provide that coast guard services include activities related to security and to authorize the responsible minister to collect, analyze and disclose information and intelligence.
Part 5 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to disclose, for certain purposes and subject to any regulations, personal information under the control of the Department within the Department and to certain other federal and provincial government entities. It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the making of regulations relating to the disclosure of information collected for the purposes of that Act to federal departments and agencies.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
- (a) eliminate the designated countries of origin regime;
- (b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to specify the information and documents that are required in support of a claim for refugee protection;
- (c) authorize the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been abandoned in certain circumstances;
- (d) provide the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the power to determine that claims for refugee protection that have not yet been referred to the Refugee Protection Division have been withdrawn in certain circumstances;
- (e) require the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division to suspend certain proceedings respecting a claim for refugee protection if the claimant is not present in Canada;
- (f) clarify that decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board must be rendered, and reasons for those decisions must be given, in the manner specified by its Chairperson; and
- (g) authorize regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must designate, in relation to certain proceedings or applications, a representative for persons who are under 18 years of age or who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application. It also includes transitional provisions.
Part 7 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
- (a) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order specifying that certain applications made under that Act are not to be accepted for processing, or that the processing of those applications is to be suspended or terminated, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
- (b) authorize the Governor in Council to make an order to cancel, suspend or vary certain documents issued under that Act, or to impose or vary conditions, when the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
- (c) for the application of an order referred to in paragraph (b), require a person to appear for an examination, answer questions truthfully and produce all relevant documents or evidence that an officer requires; and
- (d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which a document issued under that Act can be cancelled, suspended or varied, and in which officers may terminate the processing of certain applications made under that Act.
Part 8 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add two new grounds of ineligibility for claims for refugee protection as well as powers to make regulations respecting exceptions to those new grounds. It also includes a transitional provision respecting the retroactive application of those new grounds.
Part 9 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
- (a) increase the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and the maximum punishments that may be imposed for certain criminal offences under that Act;
- (b) replace the existing optional compliance agreement regime with a new mandatory compliance agreement regime that, among other things,
  - (i) requires every person or entity that receives an administrative monetary penalty for a prescribed violation to enter into a compliance agreement with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the Centre),
  - (ii) requires the Director of the Centre to make a compliance order if the person or entity refuses to enter into a compliance agreement or fails to comply with such an agreement, and
  - (iii) designates the contravention of a compliance order as a new violation under t hat Act;
- (c) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act, other than those already required to register, to enroll with the Centre; and
- (d) authorize the Centre to disclose certain information to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, subject to certain conditions.
- It also makes consequential and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations and includes transitional provisions.
Part 10 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to make the Director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada a member of the committee established under subsection 18(1) of that Act. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to enable the Director to exchange information with the other members of that committee.
Part 11 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to, among other things,
- (a) make certain changes to a sex offender’s reporting obligations, including the circumstances in which they are required to report, the information that must be provided and the time within which it is to be provided;
- (b) provide that any of a sex offender’s physical characteristics that may assist in their identification may be recorded when they report to a registration centre;
- (c) clarify what may constitute a reasonable excuse for a sex offender’s non-compliance with the requirement to give at least 14 days’ notice prior to a departure from their residence for seven or more consecutive days;
- (d) authorize the Canada Border Services Agency to disclose certain information relating to a sex offender’s arrival in and departure from Canada to law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of that Act;
- (e) authorize, in certain circumstances, the disclosure of information collected under that Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will assist in the prevention or investigation of a crime of a sexual nature; and
- (f) clarify that a person who discloses information under section 16 of that Act with the belief that they are acting in accordance with that section is not guilty of an offence under section 17 of that Act.
- It also makes a related amendment to the Customs Act.

Commentary:

No significant discussion or debate is yet reported for this bill.

Bill C-201: Covered Mental Health and Addictions Services (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-203: Ukrainian Heritage Month (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-204: Tax credit for search and firefighting volunteers (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-205: National Housing Strategy (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-206: National Strategy on Brain Injuries (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-207: Canada Pension Plan (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-208: National Livestock Brand (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-209: Albanian Heritage Month (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-210: Constitution Act – oath of office (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-211: Income Tax and Canada Pension Plan – deeming provision (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-212: Citizenship and Immigration – Ombud Office (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-213: Immigration and Refugee Protection (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-214: National Strategy for Renewable Energy (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-215: Marine Liability Act – pollution from container spills (outside Order of Precedence)

Commons: Introduction and first reading 18 June 2025. Second reading not scheduled – bill remains outside the Order of Precedence.

Sponsor(s): Private Member’s Bill, Gordon Johns (Courtenay-Alberni).

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-215

Summary:

The bill seeks to amend the Marine Liability Act to provide for the development and implementation of a national strategy to address pollution caused by shipping container spills. The strategy would include:

(a) identifying and assess any potential gaps in the current regime governing pollution caused by shipping container spills;

(b) reviewing current salvage capabilities in case of shipping container spills;

(c) assessing the adequacy of the measures that can currently be taken to prevent, repair, remedy or minimize pollution damage from shipping container spills and to track containers lost at sea;

(d) assessing the adequacy of the requirements respecting ship manifests; and

(e) evaluating the potential benefits of setting up a fund to compensate for and clean up pollution damage caused by shipping containers lost at sea.

and would include

(a) measures to prevent shipping container spills;

(b) measures to enhance communication between responders and stakeholders and with coastal communities;

(c) measures to establish a joint spill response task force composed of representatives of the federal and provincial governments, local authorities, Indigenous organizations, commercial fishing organizations and non-governmental organizations;

(d) measures to provide for the monitoring and removal of debris from containers lost at sea;

(e) measures to address any gaps identified in the current regime governing pollution caused by shipping container spills; and

(f) measures to fund research on the impact of the presence in waters of polystyrene, microplastics and other plastics, as well as research on removal techniques.

Commentary:

No substantial introduction or debate of the bill is yet reported.

Bill C-216: Protect Minors in Digital Age (outside Order of Precedence)

Commons: First Reading June 19, 2025. Second Reading not scheduled – Bill remains outside the Order of Precedence.

Sponsor(s): Private Member’s Bill, Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill).

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-216

Summary:

Part 1 of the bill seeks enactment of a Protection of Minors in the Digital Age Act, the purpose of which is to provide for a safe online environment for minors by requiring owners and operators of platforms such as online services or applications to ensure that minors’ personal data is not used in a manner that could compromise their privacy, health or well-being.

Part 2 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,

(a) clarify the types of Internet services covered by that Act;

(b) simplify the mandatory notification process set out in section 3 by providing that all notifications be sent to a law enforcement body designated in the regulations;

(c) require that transmission data be provided with the mandatory notice in cases where the content is manifestly child sexual abuse and exploitation material;

(d) extend the period of preservation of data related to an offence;

(e) extend the limitation period for the prosecution of an offence under that Act; and

(f) add certain regulation-making powers.

Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,

(a) prohibit the publication of the image of a person created or edited through the use of computer software that falsely represents the person, in a manner that is intended to make the image appear authentic, as being nude, as exposing their genital organs, anal region or breasts or as being engaged in explicit sexual activity;

(b) create a separate offence of criminal harassment that is conducted by means of the Internet, a social media service or other digital network and require the court imposing a sentence for the offence to consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the offender, in committing the offence, communicated with the victim anonymously or using a false identity; and

(c) provide for the circumstances in which a person who presents a risk of committing an offence of online harassment may be required to enter into a recognizance and, if the person has communicated anonymously or using a false identity, provide for the circumstances in which a court may make a production order for the purpose of identifying the person.

Commentary:

No substantial introduction or debate of the bill is yet reported.

Bill C-217: Student Financial Assistance – assistance for disabled students (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-218: Amend Criminal Justice Act respecting Assisted Suicide (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-219: Corrupt Foreign Influence – transnational repression (outside Order of Precedence)

Commons: First Reading September 16, 2025. Second Reading not scheduled – Bill remains outside the Order of Precedence.

Sponsor(s): Private Member’s Bill, James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman).

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-219

Summary:

The bill seeks to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to impose certain requirements on the Minister of Foreign Affairs in relation to international human rights.

It also amends the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to provide that

(a) transnational repression be sanctioned;

(b) visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Act;

(c) a copy of each order or regulation made under paragraph 4(1)‍(b) of the Act must be tabled in each House of Parliament;

(d) the Minister must respond to a report submitted by a parliamentary committee that recommends that sanctions be imposed under the Act against a foreign national; and

(e) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada must provide the Minister with information that is relevant to the making, administering or enforcing of the order or regulation against a foreign national.

It also amends the Special Economic Measures Act to change that Act’s long title to “An Act to provide for the imposition of economic measures against a person, entity or foreign state for grave breaches of international peace and security, gross and systematic human rights violations or acts of significant corruption” and its short title to the “Sergei Magnitsky Global Sanctions Act”. It further amends that Act to provide that

(a) transnational repression be sanctioned;

(b) visas or other documents must not be issued to immediate family members of a foreign national who is the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Act;

(c) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada must provide the Minister with information that is relevant to the making, administering or enforcing of the order or regulation against a foreign state or person;

(d) every order or regulation made under paragraph 4(1)‍(b) of the Act must be tabled in each House of Parliament; and

(e) the punishment under paragraph 8(a) of the Act be increased.

Finally, it amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the issue or renewal of a licence in relation to a broadcasting undertaking, or to revoke the licence of a broadcasting undertaking, that is vulnerable to being significantly influenced by a foreign national or entity that has committed acts or omissions that the Senate or the House of Commons has recognized as genocide or that is the subject of sanctions under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) or under the Special Economic Measures Act.‍‍

Commentary:

No substantial introduction or debate of the bill is yet reported.

Bill C-220: Criminal Code – immigration status in sentencing (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-221: Corrections and Release – disclosure of information to victims (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-222: Employment Insurance Act – death of a child (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-223: Divorce Act – keeping children safe (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-224: Food and Drugs Act – natural health products (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-225: Criminal Code – intimate partner violence (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-226: National Framework – food price transparency (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-227: National Strategy – housing for young Canadians (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-228: Foreign Affairs and Trade – prior review of treaties (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-229: National Framework – attention deficit and hyperactivity (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-230: Corporate Debt Forgiveness Registry (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-231: Youth Criminal Justice Act – addiction treatment (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-232: Corrections and Release – maximum security offenders (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill C-233: Export and Import Permits – arms trade (outside Order of Precedence)

Bill S-228: Sterilization as Criminal Assault (Passed by Senate and awaits 1st reading in House)

Senate: Reported out of committee without amendment. 3rd reading complete 2 October 2025, passed to Commons.

Commons: Awaits first reading.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Yvonne Boyer.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-228

Summary:

To make it explicit in the Criminal Code that sterilizing someone without their consent constitutes aggravated assault under subsection 268(1) of the Criminal Code.

The bill states that whereas the sterilization of persons without their consent is a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionally, but not exclusively, affects Indigenous and racialized persons, the bill seeks to clarify that for purposes of the Criminal Code the term “sterilization procedure ” means the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.

Commentary:

At second Senate reading the bill’s Sponsor, Senator Yvonne Boyer, explained that bill S-227 addresses an unconscionable and ongoing practice: the forced and coerced sterilization of women and marginalized persons in Canada. She explained that forced sterilization is not a relic of the past, but is happening in Canada today, continuing a long, painful legacy of eugenics, of using sterilization to control and limit certain populations. From 1928 to 1973, Alberta and British Columbia had sexual sterilization acts that disproportionately targeted Indigenous women. Over 4,700 sterilizations were carried out in Alberta alone.

Indigenous women — once revered in their communities as the givers of life and the holders of cultural knowledge — were and are targeted because of colonial beliefs that devalue their bodies and autonomy. This oppression was justified through colonialism, paternalism and racism, and it did not stop with the repeal of those laws. There are hundreds of stories. Senator Boyer’s office has counted at least 12,000 Indigenous women who were forcibly or coercively sterilized in Canada between 1971 and 2018.

Across Canada, ongoing class action lawsuits continue to shed light on the scale and persistence of forced and coerced sterilization. These class actions represent hundreds of Indigenous women who were sterilized without consent. The fact that these lawsuits span multiple jurisdictions and remain unresolved underscores the national scope of this crisis. Survivors are seeking justice not only for their personal trauma, but also for the systemic failures that allowed this practice to continue unchecked.

These cases are a stark legal and moral warning: Our health care and legal systems have not yet reckoned with the full weight of this violation, and until they do, the harm will continue.

A similar bill, S-250, is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 44th Parliament.

At third Senate reading,

Senator Amina Gerba spoke in support of the bill, explaining that as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, she had participated in the study on forced and coerced sterilization in Canada, and that in fact she had herself suffered a hysterectomy without her consent, during the course of a consented and simpler surgery. “We are not here to protect the powerful,” she testified. “We are here to defend the vulnerable. Our duty in the Senate is clear: to represent minorities and ensure that the laws we pass are equitable, inclusive and non‑discriminatory. We stand with others as guardians of human dignity… Our study revealed a chilling truth: Forced sterilization is not a thing of the past. It remains a concrete sign of systemic racism within our health care institutions. That racism is not limited to Indigenous communities. It also affects racialized women, marginalized women and women with disabilities.”

Senator Paula Simons spoke with expressions of reluctance, to express her concerns about (a) the relationship between S-228 and Section 268 of the Criminal Code, which provides an exception from criminal responsibility for those performing a surgical operation on any person for the benefit of that person if the operation is performed with reasonable care and skill, and it is reasonable to perform the operation, having regard to the state of health of the person at the time the operation is performed and to all the circumstances of the case. While this provision

might seem to protect any surgeon or other medical professional who carries out a sterilization procedure in good faith or during a medical emergency from criminal liability… the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard from expert witnesses, both via testimony and via written brief, who raised serious concerns about, among other things, the chilling effects that Bill S-228 could have on the ability of Canadians to get reproductive or gender-affirming care. The National Association of Women and the Law put it this way in their recent brief to the Legal Committee: One of the most dangerous aspects of Bill S-228 is that it moves sterilization out of the realm of healthcare and into the realm of criminal law. Like abortion, permanent sterilization (when done with consent) is healthcare and should be regulated as such. As soon as sterilization falls under the ambit of criminal law, it becomes easier to restrict access to it…

Now, maybe I’ve read The Handmaid’s Tale too many times, but I fear a future when a different government could use these provisions as a way to start to prevent women — and men — who wish to have reproductive control over their own bodies from getting that care. In the shorter term, the association also raises the concern, which I share, that some doctors may simply stop offering or providing such care for fear of prosecution or even just fear of investigation. And, they argue, the bill’s very wording may mean that the most vulnerable women will be the ones least likely to get the care they need and desire.

Let me quote again from the association’s September brief: A related concern is Bill S-228’s potential reinforcement of paternalism and sexism in health care. For example, physicians may not take a woman’s consent to permanent sterilization at face value and may require the presence of witnesses or multiple verbal and written affirmations. This ignores the reality that some women experiencing family violence, especially those experiencing reproductive coercion, may wish to undergo permanent sterilization without informing their partner or families. It could also be seen as a value judgment that discourages women from accessing this type of care. . . . Ironically, then, it may be Indigenous women, immigrant women, women in abusive relationships who may be most hurt by Bill S-228.

But it wasn’t only the National Association of Women and the Law who sounded concerns over this bill. We also heard passionate testimony from doctors, specifically from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The society’s president, Dr. Lynn Murphy-Kaulbeck, told us this when she spoke to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week:

Our concern, however, is about how this bill will be interpreted and applied in real clinical settings. Obstetrics and gynecology can be high-stakes fields where emergencies can unfold in minutes. In the middle of a massive hemorrhage or a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, physicians cannot pause to parse the fine distinctions of the law. Their focus must be on saving the patient’s life.

If there is even a perception that those life-saving actions could later be second-guessed as a potential criminal offence, hesitation becomes a real risk, and the consequences fall on the patient who may lose precious minutes of care. . . .

Dr. Murphy-Kaulbeck compared the possible risks of Bill S-228 to the disastrous consequences of criminalizing abortion in various American states in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s striking down of Roe v. Wade. Doctors in states there have let women suffer and even die in the delivery room for fear of violating the law.

Dr. Murphy-Kaulbeck raised concerns that doctors here may similarly hesitate to take immediate action to save a life for fear of a criminal inquiry. She said:

We have seen how this type of chilling effect has already unfolded in the United States, where legal uncertainty around reproductive health laws has led some physicians to delay or withhold urgent treatment for fear of prosecution. These situations have led to preventable deaths of women in the U.S. If physicians in Canada begin to question whether they could be facing up to 14 years in prison for providing emergency care to a woman whose life may be at risk, this could lead to similar dire consequences here.

Senator David M. Wells, the official critic, spoke in support of the bill in the form presented, and called for its final Senate approval.

Bill S-2: Amending the Indian Act (2nd reading complete, at committee as of 25 June 2025)

Bill S-201: National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease (passed to committee June 12, 2025)

Bill S-202: Warning Labels for Alcoholic Beverages (passed to committee June 12, 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 28 May 2025, 2^rd reading completed 12 June 2025, referred to committee (no activity reported).

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Patrick Brazeau.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-202

Summary:

To require warning labels on alcoholic beverages.

Commentary:

A similar bill is reported to have previously been introduced in the 44th Parliament.

In debate Senator David Richards, acting as critic of the bill, praised its sponsor and several of its provisions, while noting that:

Unlike nutritional labels or tobacco warnings, alcohol products in Canada are not required to display any health warnings, but effectively implementing such a measure is not without its challenges. Cancer Care Ontario noted this in its 2014 publication Cancer Risk Factors in Ontario, where it stated the following: While alcohol is a risk factor for cancer when consumed in any quantity, light to moderate levels of consumption can protect against cardiovascular disease. This poses unique challenges for increasing awareness of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

This supposed contradiction in the health outcomes of alcohol consumption makes the discussion much different than the one surrounding the use of tobacco, for instance. This focus is not a prohibition approach but a question of how much alcohol can be safely consumed. Bill S-202 wisely leaves these details up to the Department of Health to determine.

But our awareness of this challenge is important because despite the growing popularity of alcohol warning labels, the evidence on the effectiveness of warning labels has always been mixed. A recent study titled “Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations” was published in 2022 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. What their findings suggest is that simply affixing a label to alcohol containers is not, in itself, an effective strategy. There is a broad range of factors that must be considered when evaluating or designing alcohol warning labels.

Bill S-203: Prohibiting the Promotion of Alcoholic Beverages (2nd Reading in progress)

Bill S-204: National Framework on Heart Failure (passed to 2nd Reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-205: Corrections and Conditional Release (2nd Reading in progress)

Bill S-206: National Framework for a guaranteed livable income (debated at 2nd reading, 4 June 2025.)

Bill S-207: Expiry of Criminal Records (passed to 2nd Reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-208: Protecting Judicial Independence (passed to 2nd Reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-209: Restricting Young Persons’ Online Access to Pornography (briefs posted by committee)

Senate: 1^streading completed 28 May 2025, 2^rd reading completed 12 June 2025. Passed to Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration. Briefs from eight separate individuals have been posted on the Committee’s web page at https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/lcjc/briefs/45-1#?sessionFilter=45-1&OrderOfReferenceID=665882

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Julie Miville-Dechene.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-209

Summary:

To make it an offence for organizations to make pornographic material available to young persons on the Internet, and to enable a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent pornographic material from being made available to young persons on the Internet in Canada.

At second reading the bill’s critic Senator Hon. Yonah Martin noted that a previous version of the bill was passed by the Senate in 2023 and garnered multi-party support in the House of Commons before the last session ended. He further noted that as currently presented, the proposed legislation maintains the same fundamental objective while incorporating several important amendments. Senator Martin explained the the underlying purpose of S-209 as safeguarding young people from well-documented harms of easily accessible online pornography, which have been characterized by the bill’s sponsor as a public health problem. They point to studies suggesting that early and frequent exposure can distort a young person’s understanding of healthy relationships, reinforce harmful sexual norms and even stimulate addiction-like effects on the developing brain. Simply put, pornography was never designed for children, and its uncontrolled availability poses risks to their well-being.

Senator Martin described the objective as not to criminalize consensual adult viewing of pornography, but to mandate reasonable steps so that minors cannot access it. This would include balancing the protection of young people without unduly infringing on the rights and privacy of adults. To effect such a balance, the current version of the bill replaces the term “sexually explicit material” with “pornographic material” and provides a precise definition in the bill itself, namely as “any photographic, film, video or other visual representation . . . the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a person’s genital organs or anal region or, if the person is female, her breasts . . . .” The core obligation in the bill remains that any commercial website or organization making pornographic material available must ensure that persons under 18 cannot access it by instituting a rigorous age-check mechanism.

Importantly, Senator Martin said, Bill S-209 provides options for technological compliance. Whereas the previous bill only mentioned age verification, the new bill allows for age-estimation methods as well. This addition acknowledges that emerging technologies might estimate a user’s age without collecting as much personal data as traditional ID verification. An organization can potentially avoid prosecution under the act if it has implemented a government-approved “prescribed age-verification or age-estimation method” to restrict access to adults only.

Commentary:

Similar bills are reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 43rd and 44th Parliaments.

In the house of Commons, Member Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park – Fort Saskatchewan) brought forth a petition in support of S-209, seeking to protect young persons from exposure to pornography. Mr Genuis stated that the petition notes that sexually explicit material, including demeaning and violent material, can be easily accessed on the Internet by young persons. A significant portion of that material is made available on the Internet for commercial purposes and is not protected by age verification. Parliament recognizes the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit materials online for young persons. Further, the petitioners note that online age verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can now effectively ascertain the age of users without any breach of privacy. Petitioners call for reasonable age verification requirements that protect privacy so that young children are no longer able to access sexual material online, and therefor call on the House to support the bill.

Briefs from eight separate individuals have been posted on the Committee’s web page at https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/lcjc/briefs/45-1#?sessionFilter=45-1&OrderOfReferenceID=665882

Bill S-210: Ukrainian Heritage Month (passed to second reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-211: National Framework for Sports Betting Advertising (reported by committee 8 October 2025)

Bill S-212: National Strategy for Children and Youth in Canada (passed to committee 12 June 2025)

Bill S-213: To Amend Elections Act – Demographic Info (to 2nd Reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-214: Special Economic Measures – Disposal of Foreign Assets (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-215: National Immigration Month (to committee 18 June 2025)

Bill S-216: Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-217: Reporting of Unpaid Income Tax (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 28 May 2025, 2nd reading begun 4 June 2025. Second reading in progress.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Percy Downe.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-217

Summary:

To amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require the Canada Revenue Agency to list all convictions for tax evasion — including international tax evasion — in the annual report it submits to the Minister of National Revenue. It also requires the Agency, once every three years, to include statistics on the tax gap in the annual report. In addition, this enactment specifies that the Minister is to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap.

Commentary:

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Percy Downe, explained at second reading that the bill is intended to require the Government of Canada to disclose all convictions for overseas tax evasion and to measure the tax gap — the difference between what taxes should have been collected and what is actually collected. It would also require the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, with data it has collected on the tax gap, as well as any additional data that the PBO considers important so he can prepare his own independent analysis of the tax gap.

It is not illegal to have a bank account overseas. But it is illegal not to report any proceeds from those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Confidence in the CRA has eroded as story after story has been published about overseas tax evasion with no punishments and, unfortunately, little or no recovery of money, compounded by the repeated response of the CRA after each public disclosure that they are working hard to catch overseas tax cheats; that they take it very seriously; that they’ve identified, as opposed to collected, X amount of money; that work is ongoing; that “we have much work to do”; and so on.

Unfortunately, these comments from the CRA belie the fact that their efforts and results are disappointing in the extreme. Bill S-217 is intended to address this concern.

A similar bill is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 42nd and 44th Parliaments. In the 44th Parliament the bill was passed by the Senate and was at 2nd reading in the Commons when the election was called.

Bill S-218: Limiting Federal use of Notwithstanding Clause (debated at 2nd reading 12 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 28 May 2025, 2nd reading begun 4 June 2025. Second reading in progress.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Peter Harder.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-218

Summary:

To amend the Constitution Act to to provide for conditions that must be met in order for Parliament to enact legislation that invokes section 33 of that Act (the “notwithstanding” clause). Specifically, the bill provides that any including a declaration must originate within the House of Commons, and be introduced by a minister. Among other provisions, any motion to read an infringing bill in the House of Commons for a third time may only be adopted with the support of

(a) two-thirds of the membership of that House; and

(b) members of at least two groups composed solely of members who are members of the same recognized party.

Commentary:

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Peter Harder, explained at second reading that the Act is intended to restrict circumstances in which the “notwithstanding” clause of the Constitution Act might be invoked to override Charter rights concerns in enacting new legislation. Senator Harder explained that in the clause, which originated as a compromise between the federal and provincial governments, was intended to ensure the provinces’ legislative supremacy over the courts when there was seen to be an important conflict of rights. Without section 33, the Senator explained, there would have been no Charter. Yet it has become apparent in recent years that “populist governments would rather avoid compromise when it comes to the Charter of Rights of Canadians by invoking the ‘notwithstanding’ clause. Oftentimes, it is done pre-emptively, going against all intentions of the provincial representatives who originally fought for it… Politics have turned into a blood sport. The rhetoric and histrionics used by political parties — some more than others — seek to divide and create an “us versus them” mentality. Where the party goes, the base blindly follows, and facts, logic and reason hold no persuasion. Compromise becomes futile because there is no talking with the perceived enemy. Not everyone encourages or follows this approach, but there’s enough of it to be damaging to our political institutions.”

Bill S-219: Judicial Independence Day (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 28 May 2025, 2nd reading begun 10 June 2025. No subsequent activity reported.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Pierre Moreau.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-219

Summary:

To designate January 11th in each and every year as “Judicial Independence Day,” thereby to draw public attention to the threats to judicial independence in many countries of the world.

Commentary:

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Pierre Moreau, explained at second reading that, as His Majesty the King pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination, and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the Government is determined to protect. The independence of the judiciary ensures the rule of law is upheld. Judges must be able to make decisions based solely on the rule of law. The separation of powers is the foundational principle of that independence in that it guarantees the impartial treatment of citizens before the courts and in dealings with the state. Like the rule of law, judicial independence guarantees human dignity and respect for human rights. It enables judges to resist all outside interference.

However, under the influence of fear, exacerbated populism, dehumanization or individuals greedy for absolute power, democracy is retreating. Many regimes have attacked the independence of their judicial institutions, while others have completely overturned the independence of their judiciary in favour of oppressive and arbitrary governments. There are unfortunately many examples of this.

In Canada, it is easy to take for granted that these cardinal rules are part of the founding principles of any democratic society. However, as we know, all democracies are fragile, and Canada is no exception. We ourselves have had politicians who have suddenly and inexplicably thought it wise to criticize the courts and judges and publicly challenge their decisions. The direct consequence of these criticisms and attacks is to erode public confidence in the administration of justice and undermine the authority of the courts. For example, a few years ago, members of the executive attacked the integrity of the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, then Chief Justice of Canada, when the Supreme Court rejected an appointment proposed by the executive and deemed inadequate within the meaning of the law.

More recently, some provincial premiers have seen fit to say that judges were engaging in legal activism, that politicizing the appointment process would increase the incarceration rate and that federally appointed judges are incapable of interpreting provincial laws.

The duty to educate and inform belongs to all branches of government. Judges are condemned to silence outside their judgments, but the very function of rendering judgment is to be the expression and application of our public values in response to wrongful actions. The bill will therefore enable judicial institutions to promote their public information and awareness activities, particularly among young citizens.

A similar bill is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 44th Parliament.

Bill S-220: Hellenic Heritage Month (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-221: National Bird of Canada: Canada Jay (to 2nd reading 28 May 2025)

Bill S-222: Referendum to Extend Voting Rights to 16 and 17 year-olds (to 2nd reading 29 May 2025)

Bill S-223: Duty of RCMP to Enforce First Nations Laws (to 2nd reading 3 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 3 June 2025, passed to 2nd reading. Last speech June 18, 2025.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Mary Jane McCallum.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-223

Summary:

To amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that the duties of members who are peace officers include the prevention of offences against First Nation laws and the execution of warrants that may, under First Nation laws, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers.

Commentary:

Described at 2nd reading by sponsor Senator Mary Jane McCallum as a “sister bill” to bill S-224, which deals with prosecution of First Nations Laws. The subject matter of bills S-223 and S-224 being “so intimately braided” they are discussed together in debate.

As Senator McCallum explained, the lived experience of facing unrelenting oppression from the federal government is an area of Canadian history that has not been shared with Canadians. The conclusion of the 1991 Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry states that Canada’s treatment of its first citizens has been an international disgrace. To fail to take every needed step to redress this lingering injustice will continue to bring tragedy and suffering to Aboriginal people, and to blacken our country’s name throughout the world.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 set out a three-cornered system of governance for British North America, combining the imperial Crown, its colonies and those “. . . Nations or Tribes of Indians . . . .” From that time until 1869 enactment of the Indian Act, First Nations were self-governing within their recognized jurisdictions, including all internal affairs. After that time, as part of attempts to enfranchise and assimilate Indigenous people, the act abolished traditional forms of government and replaced them with a male-only elective system largely under the control of the local Indian agent. The Act spelled out in detail how First Nations would lose control of almost every aspect of their communities. Denial of self-determination was imposed through the act’s construction of an officially sanctioned “status Indian,” in effect creating the colonized Indian.

More recently the First Nations Land Management Act of 1999 and the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act of 2014 were intended to create new and enhanced law-making authorities to support the self-determination of First Nations, including expansion of the range of powers that First Nations could exercise and freeing them from the discretion of the Governor in Council or Minister. However, they have instead had the effect of creating “stranded regimes” of First Nation laws that are not enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have not been subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, resulting in rising levels of substance abuse and violence in First Nations Communities.

Bill S-223 will amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to clarify duties of the RCMP. with respect to enforcement of First Nation laws and execution of First Nations warrants.

A similar bill, S-271, is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 44th Parliament.

Bill S-224: Duty of the Public Prosecutors to Enforce First Nations Law (to 2nd reading 3 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 3 June 2025. Introduced by Sponsor on June 19, 2025. Remains at 2nd reading; no activity since.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Mary Jane McCallum.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-224

Summary:

To amend amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions initiates and conducts prosecutions of summary conviction offences under First Nation laws on behalf of the First Nation that made or enacted the First Nation law, unless the First Nation has appointed or retained a prosecutor or entered into an agreement with a provincial or territorial government for the prosecution of such offences.

Commentary:

Described at 2nd reading by sponsor Senator Mary Jane McCallum as a “sister bill” to bill S-223, which deals with RCMP enforcement of First Nations Laws. The subject matter of bills S-223 and S-224 being “so intimately braided” they are discussed together in debate.

Bill S-223 will amend the the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions initiates and conducts prosecutions of summary conviction offences under First Nation laws on behalf of the First Nation that made or enacted the First Nation law, unless the First Nation has appointed or retained a prosecutor or entered into an agreement with a provincial or territorial government for the prosecution of such offences.

A similar bill, S-272, is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 44th Parliament.

Bill S-225: National Thanadelthur Day (to 2nd reading 3 June 2025)

Bill S-226: Jury Duty Appreciation Week (passed 1st reading 5 June 2025)

Bill S-227: Arab Heritage Month (2nd reading started 11 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 5 June 2025. Second reading commenced 11 June 2025. The official critic spoke in support of the bill on June 19, 2025. No activity is reported since.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Mohammad Khair Al Zaibak.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-227

Summary:

An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month. As explained by the bill, the population of Arab Canadians has since grown to over one million and continues to flourish, with young and dynamic Arab Canadian communities thriving throughout Canada. Arab Canadians from all walks of life have made important contributions to Canada’s social, economic and political life, as well as the cultural fabric of Canada, including through literature, music, food and fashion. The Arab Canadian population wishes to be recognized, and to be joined by the nation in celebrating the historic mark they have made and continue to make in building Canadian society.

Commentary:

Senator Al Zaibak explained, during 2nd reading, that:

Passage of the bill an historic achievement for three reasons: first, because it recognizes contributions that have shaped and enhanced Canada’s social fabric; second, because it aligns us with a global movement recognizing Arab contributions; and third, because it helps deepen Canadians’ understanding of the value Arab Canadians bring to our shared identity.

It is important to know who Arabs and Arab Canadians are. From an historical and religious traditions’ perspective, Arabs are a Semitic people. They are the descendants of the patriarch Abraham through his first son, Ishmael. As such, Arabs share linguistic, ancestral and historical connections with other Semitic groups in the Middle East and Africa. This includes, of course, ancient peoples such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Ancient Hebrews, Arameans and others, as well as modern peoples and languages such as Arabic speakers, Hebrew speakers, Amharic speakers, Tigrinya speakers and others. Inclusion of Arabs in the Semitic family is not just semantics; it underscores a shared humanity, reminding everyone that the people of the Middle East are metaphorically — if not literally — cousins.

The term “Arab” is incredibly broad. It includes anyone who lives in, or hails from, the Arab world, whose first language or mother tongue is Arabic, and who has a deep sense of belonging to a shared Arab culture, heritage and history. The Arab world represents a massive geographical area that extends from the Arabian Gulf through North Africa to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, spanning 22 Arab states. It is a region diverse in physical geography, climate and natural resources, but its inhabitants share cultural traditions and the Arabic language.

With a population of over 450 million people, the Arab world is religiously diverse as well. Contrary to what many Canadians may think, not all Arabs are Muslim nor are all Muslims Arabs. For instance, the Muslim world population is almost 2 billion people, and only less than 20% of whom are Muslim Arabs. Here in Canada there are about 2 million Muslim Canadians, and only half a million of whom are Arabs.

Today Canada is home to a vibrant and diverse Arab-Canadian community of about 1.1 million people. Beyond the half million mentioned above, who identify as Arab Muslims and who follow several schools of thought, the remaining majority identify as Arab Christians of various denominations, Arab Jews, followers of ancient religions that preceded monotheism or others who don’t identify with any religion at all.

In other words, my fellow senators, many Arab Canadians are religiously, ethnically and geographically very diverse and can be different from each other in many aspects.

Senator Salma Ataullahjan, the official critic for bill S-227, spoke supportively of the bill before highlighting a few Arab inventors who paved the way for Newton, Galileo, and even the Wright brother.

A similar bill, C-232, is reported to have previously been introduced in the House of Commons during the 44th Parliament.

Bill S-229: National Capitol Act – Gatineau Park (2nd reading complete, passed to committee)

Senate: 1^streading completed. Second reading commenced 12 June 2025. No activity reported since.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Rosa Galvez.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-229

Summary:

Seeks to amend the National Capital Act to, among other things,

(a) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;

(b) prioritize the ecological integrity of the park in its management by the National Capital Commission (NCC);

(d) strengthen consultation and collaboration between the NCC, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation and neighbouring municipalities;

(e) promote the use of services from businesses and workers of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation for maintenance and conservation activities in Gatineau Park;

(f) authorize the creation of regulations to oversee activities in the park and set corresponding fees.

Commentary:

At second reading the bill’s Sponsor Senator Rosa Galvez explained that she hopes to provide Gatineau Park all the protection a national park deserves, and that she has introduced the bill in very close collaboration with the MP for the riding of Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, which encompasses a large part of Gatineau Park.

The Senator stated that the science is unequivocal: Global warming, biodiversity loss, pollution and ocean acidification have exceeded planetary limits. The planet is warming, and this, in turn, is triggering a series of negative impacts on natural ecosystems. Global biodiversity is rapidly declining, leading many experts to declare that we are witnessing the sixth mass extinction. Scientists are predicting that more than one million species are currently on track for extinction in the coming decades, constituting a crisis with unimaginable consequences. Humanity depends on biodiversity in countless ways: through the pollination of plants and crops for agriculture, regulation of the quality of the air we breathe, the water and soil quality and our natural resources. The loss of ecological diversity will make our ecosystems less resilient and will worsen our economies and our health.

The world still has a long way to go to achieve our goals and restore the balance between humanity and nature, but the work has to start right here at home. Canada has committed to achieving the 30×30 goal and is moving too slowly in protecting its lands and waters.

Although there has been a significant increase in protection over the last decade, Canada remains far from the target, with only 14.7% of marine territory conserved. As for land, Canada has conserved 13.7%. With only five years to go before the 2030 deadline, we have a lot of catching up to do. Moreover, across the country, more than 520 species of plants and animals are at risk, according to the public register.

Within its 361 square kilometres, Gatineau Park is the site of more than 50 lakes and numerous wetlands, streams and rivers. Five of the park’s ecosystems and two of its habitats are of great ecological importance. The park is home to more than 50 mammal species, 10 or so reptile species, 15 amphibian species, nearly 230 bird species and thousands of invertebrates. There are also around 1,000 species of plants and 50 species of trees.

As Senator Galvez explained in her prior speech on the bill, Gatineau Park is not officially a national park. It is not enshrined in legislation and does not benefit from any formal legal status granted to other national parks, even though it is the second most visited park in all of Canada, with 2.6 million visits recorded annually.

To rectify this, Bill S-229 includes five main actions.

First, it establishes Gatineau Park in federal legislation and dedicates it to all Canadians and to future generations. It is important to preserve the park for decades and centuries to come.

Second, it ensures that ecological integrity is the primary focus of park management. Canada cannot benefit from the park if its ecosystems collapse.

Third, it establishes the park’s boundaries in federal legislation, and it stipulates that these boundaries may only be reduced by legislation, subject to certain exceptions, such as for the development of public health care facilities or public infrastructure.

Fourth, it strengthens ties and cooperation between the National Capital Commission, or NCC, and the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation in the region, as well as with neighbouring municipalities. We all know we must advance reconciliation.

Fifth, it authorizes the implementation of regulations to control activities in the park and set the fees to be charged, as is the case for all of Canada’s national parks.

The bill has garnered significant support in the community. In November 2023, Gatineau city council adopted a resolution calling on the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation to ensure the sustainability and integrity of the boundaries of Gatineau Park to guarantee that current and future generations can continue to enjoy the exceptional natural environment of Gatineau Park. A majority of elected officials in the National Capital Region also support this initiative, as we saw this morning during the press conference in Gatineau Park. Since March 2023, several petitions calling for legislation to guarantee the protection of the park have been submitted to the House of Commons; more than 4,550 signatures have already been gathered. Finally, the Chief of Kitigan Zibi, Jean-Guy Whiteduck, and the Chief of Barrière Lake, Casey Ratt, both made recommendations that were incorporated into the bill. Their support for this bill is important.

The protection of Gatineau Park also contributes to the government’s goal of implementing nation-building projects — projects that reinforce Canadian and regional identities.

A similar bill is reported to have previously been introduced in the Senate during the 44th Parliament.

Bill S-230: National Strategy for Soil Health – (passed to 2nd reading 12 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed. Second reading commenced 12 June 2025. No activity reported since.

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Robert Black.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-230

Summary:

To require the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to develop a national strategy to support and promote efforts across Canada to protect, conserve and enhance the health of soil. It also provides for reporting requirements in relation to the strategy.

Commentary:

The bill’s preamble states that in June, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry tabled a report on the status of soil health in Canada and made 25 recommendations to the Government of Canada to protect and conserve soil health. A need exists for a National Advocate for Soil Health to raise public awareness of the critical role soil plays in supporting food security and, therefore, social, economic and political stability. Soil health is essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems and to meeting global challenges, including climate change. Canada is losing prime agricultural farmland across the country for a variety of reasons, including soil degradation, contamination and non-agricultural development.

Agricultural practices are capable of restoring ecosystem processes, including water, biological, nutrient and energy cycling, thereby improving soil health and creating optimal growing conditions for food, fibre and fuel from biomass. Proactive soil management practices can sequester carbon and improve soil health, soil stability and water use efficiency while also reducing soil degradation. Canada is a member of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which states that 33% of the Earth’s soils are already degraded and over 90% could become degraded by 2050. The FAO’s Revised World Soil Charter calls on national governments to adopt measures related to soil health and conservation.

Climate change is causing shifting global weather patterns and bringing unseasonably high precipitation levels and more frequent droughts, thus requiring more robust solutions from agricultural producers. The Government of Canada is committed to raising public awareness of the importance of improving and sustaining soil health and, through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, to helping farmers adapt to climate change and conserve water and soil. The Parliament of Canada recognizes that developing a national strategy on protecting, conserving and enhancing soil health requires the collaboration of all provinces and territories, of all levels of government and of Indigenous communities.

Bill S-231: Advance Directives for Assisted Suicide (2nd reading commenced 16 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed. Introduced by Sponsor at second reading 16 June 2025. No activity reported since.\

Sponsor(s): Senate Public Bill, Senator Pamela Wallin.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-231

Summary:

To amend the Criminal Code to:

(a) permit an individual whose death is not reasonably foreseeable to enter into a written arrangement to receive medical assistance in dying on a specified day if they lose the capacity to consent to receiving medical assistance in dying prior to that day; and

(b) permit an individual who has been diagnosed with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to make a written declaration to waive the requirement for final consent when receiving medical assistance in dying if they lose the capacity to consent to receive medical assistance in dying, are suffering from symptoms outlined in the written declaration and have met all other relevant safeguards outlined in the Criminal Code.

Commentary:

At second reading, the bill’s sponsor Senator Pamela Wallin explained that:

She has reintroduced the bill in its existing form for the sake of time and because committees have done some work on this over the last 10 years, but is adding a preamble recognizing the new law enacted by the Province of Quebec, which she hope will serve as guidance. On the advice of the chamber’s law clerks, this preamble will allow the committee to reference the new law in their study of, and amendments to, this bill. To be clear, she seeks and is open to amendments because there have been many important legal developments in Canada.

Senator Wallin further stated that:

Death and dying are a part of life. For better or worse, we are the only species that is actually aware of the inevitability of our own death. This motivates us, helps us find purpose and makes moments meaningful and precious. If we are both lucky and willing, such awareness will also prepare us for a dignified end to our own life and help us face that loss gracefully and with compassion.

We also live in a time in which we can reasonably foresee death. We can diagnose terminal illnesses, and we can spot the signs of physical and cognitive decline scientifically and with great accuracy, but in the pursuit of longevity, we must always consider quality of life.

I believe it is our right and responsibility to be able to make our own end-of-life decisions. It is our burden, our bodies and our choice. I have come to my views by watching both of my parents die in two very different but equally tragic ways: my father to painful cancer, my mother to Alzheimer’s. Their suffering was unnecessary and preventable. A graceful exit was the only kindness they asked for, to be spared pain and indignity. My father had no access to MAID, as he lived in a rural area in Saskatchewan. For my mother, it was not possible under the law even to ask.

These are difficult issues for families… As a society, we accept DNRs and living wills for the comfort they offer. If you are undergoing life-threatening surgery or want to state your wishes that, in case of an accident, you don’t want extraordinary measures employed just to keep you alive in a vegetative state, then this is what they are there for. For me, advance requests are simply part of that continuum.

Allow me to offer a little more context. When the government introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) in 2016 in response to a Supreme Court ruling in the Carter case, it was about affording individuals the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. The government put in place — as we did in this chamber — a series of safeguards to guard against a slippery slope of access and to give more time for experts to reflect on the ethical complexity of these issues.

The concern was that an assisted death should not replace essential support and services for the under-represented, the unwilling or those who could have been treated or cared for but were failed by an unjust system. We cannot underestimate the importance of these concerns.

I served on the joint MAID committee for several years to study these very matters. MAID is not an alternative to poverty, treatment, support or family. It should and must always be a choice. To protect medical practitioners, safeguards were put in place to make sure that those requesting to undergo MAID must state — literally, in the moment before their medically assisted death — that they remain certain in their wish to die. In the law, it’s called the waiver of final consent.

The thinking was that this would prevent misadministration, ensuring that the patient, their doctor, their family and loved ones could all be absolutely certain that a MAID recipient was actually ready to die. However, instead of making things easier, it actually created more ambiguity for patients.

It created a tragic Kafkaesque scenario for people who were eligible to undergo a medically assisted death but, for instance, had an advanced form of cancer that they knew would worsen and, in the end, would prevent them from actually making that final consent aloud. Then they would have to end their own lives prematurely, to take their own life much sooner than needed, simply because they might not be physically able to consent in the late, painful stages.

This is exactly what happened with Audrey Parker, a 57-year-old Nova Scotian woman with stage 4 breast cancer, who had to end her life two months before Christmas due to this rather poorly conceived “safeguard” in the law. Countless others have likely had to make similar decisions — we know their stories — before the law was finally changed.

Thanks to Audrey’s voice and the work of her family, the government finally included what we now call “Audrey’s Amendment” to the law.

It was an important first step as it offered an early form of advance request, but, again, only for those who have already been assessed and approved for MAID and only when they are very close to the end of life.

Then came along a key court decision in the Truchon and Gladu case: Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu launched a court challenge to seek medical assistance in dying, or MAID, but they had been denied because their deaths were not naturally foreseeable. Both had degenerative diseases causing persistent and intolerable suffering — Truchon with cerebral palsy and Gladu with post-polio syndrome.

In 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec agreed that the precondition was unconstitutional. They called on Quebec and the federal government to respond. This is very important because it removed the necessity of a “reasonably foreseeable death,” creating in a sense a two-track system for access to MAID, one where death is imminent and a separate process where death is not foreseeable — inevitable but not foreseeable.

Colleagues, this was the context in which I introduced an amendment to the law, and I later introduced this bill to fully allow for advance requests. My hope was to extend the right to an advance request to those whose deaths are not imminent but inevitable, and to let Canadians have that choice — the right to choose a planned and peaceful end of life. Why would we not offer that choice to those trapped in a world of pain or in the diagnosis of dementia, which robs you of your right to actually make end-of-life decisions?

Boomers are turning 65 at a rate of 1,000 a day. By 2031, 1,000 or more will turn 85 every day. That is a quarter of our population. Increases in life expectancy have been accompanied by more and more years of age-induced disability. Modern medicine has given us longer life but has also made us victims of overtreatment, which too often offers quantity of life but not quality of life.

Where the issue of advance requests is so fundamental is for those experiencing cognitive decline, where they slowly and knowingly lose their grasp on reality and descend into what can only be described as the living death of dementia. One in four Canadians over the age of 85 suffers from dementia. For years, it was the law that once diagnosed, they were no longer considered to have the capacity to make decisions from that moment forward. We know that is not true, but it is the Catch-22 in the law.

Many people suffering from forms of dementia like Alzheimer’s still cannot access MAID because their deaths are not considered reasonably foreseeable. This is why the timing issue is so important, and, therefore, we must look at when and how often to update advance requests. Before we lose our capacity, let us make an informed choice about our future. It offers at least a little sense of control when soon you will have none at all.

When you lose your memory, you lose you. You lose your friends whom you no longer know, you lose your family whom you loved and you lose the feeling of being loved. Most important of all, you lose that sense of self — who you truly once were, what you accomplished and the lives you touched — and you lose the love and respect once so freely offered. It’s there, but you cannot recognize it or see it.

That was quite literally true of my mother. She was a schoolteacher; she changed lives and she saved lives. She was a role model before we even used that phrase. To watch her decline was heartbreaking. She stopped knowing what she had done for so many years and for so many others. The end of memory is brutal. It is a denial of our time as people who mattered and made a difference. It is a cruel and unusual punishment.

There are those who will argue we cannot ever truly know what goes on in the minds of those with dementia or Alzheimer’s. There may be moments of clarity or recognition, and we might think that if folks are happy and tapping their toes at the weekly music session, then they do have a quality of life. Those in the old folks’ homes call it happy dementia. Unfortunately, that is mostly about us wanting to feel better about our loved one because mere moments later, fear can once again engulf until the person simply knows no more.

My mother could not articulate her wants and needs the way my father had on the eve of his surgery, and that is the inherent unfairness of one diagnosis versus another — that old Catch-22. As we had discussed so often, she never wanted a life without meaning or the awareness of family, history, her past and her own story.

Families face this crisis every single day in this country. Canadians with incurable or irreversible medical conditions suffer needlessly in hospital beds and care homes. Sadder still, they suffer sometimes with loved ones close at hand but unrecognized, so they suffer alone and in fear. The worst of all fates is no longer knowing who they are or once were.

The time is now to be brave and to embrace the choices of those we love and to give them — if, and only if, they so choose — the right to leave us with dignity, just as they lived and loved with dignity. I ask you to consider this bill with both your head and your heart and to send it to our colleagues on the committee to make it better and to do so in a timely manner. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your speech. You’re right, this is an extremely difficult issue.

You mentioned Quebec, which passed legislation on this issue. Actually, this legislation sparked a major debate. Several doctors began challenging the idea of consent to death at some future time because they said they didn’t have a way to assess a person they didn’t know prior to their illness. They said that, years later, they weren’t able to ascertain the consent of a person with, as you put it, happy Alzheimer’s, or a condition that doesn’t seem to cause the patient any problems.

I realize that you said in your speech that consent is given well in advance. That poses an ethical problem for doctors who don’t necessarily know the patient many years later. They can’t just say, “Well, okay, I’m here to fulfill a contract without exercising my medical judgment.”

That was a major debate in Quebec. I wouldn’t say it was ever resolved, but it does raise the question of that period between signing and death.

Senator Wallin: In the first place, what they’ve done in the Province of Quebec is the government has asked Crown prosecutors not to prosecute because this issue is in the purview of the Criminal Code, which is exactly why we are trying to do it. We want to protect the individuals who engage in this.

I have to say that I know many MAID providers across the country. Their lives are difficult. This is not something that is easy to do. They do it because they are compassionate, because they do care and because they have promised to give the appropriate treatment to those in need.

The question of timing is why I think this is, in fact, even more crucial than it used to be. I’ve talked to many ethical experts on this, as well as medical professionals and families who have gone through this and had this discussion amongst themselves.

This is not just when you are 29 years old and write a note, saying, “I don’t want to live when I get old.” We don’t appreciate it. Many of us in this house are much closer to it than we were at an earlier time when we thought this age was old. Now we don’t think that.

These are issues that have to be wrestled with: when and how. I have certainly been given personal advice in my own situation to have this discussion with family, medical professionals and legal professionals, and to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of this so that there is testimony to this effect should you move to another province or your doctor retires and you have to deal with someone else. These issues are all real.

This is why there needs to be a continual record of this, so that there is evidence that this is not a spur-of-the-moment thing, that you had a bad day or that someone tried to convince you that this was a better idea. This is a process. The more people capture that sentiment and write it down, the more they talk to their families and professionals, the more it will give comfort, not only to the family, not only to the individual who has some hope that their wishes might be carried out, but to those on the legal side of the issue who want that comfort, to know that they are doing the right thing. Even though they might not know the individual, the history is there; it has been captured. They will have that to give them reassurance that they are doing the right thing, and that, in the end, they are providing their patient, albeit a new one, the care that they asked for.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Wallin, will you accept a question?

Senator Wallin: Yes.

Senator Simons: As you know, I supported your amendment when we had our debate about extending access. As I am listening to you tonight, I am remembering the day that I took my mother for her assessment, and she received her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s. My mother was a brilliant, witty woman, and she said, “Well, I would like medical aid in dying then.” I had to explain to her that that was not an option and never would be.

By the time she died, she was screaming in terror and agony and in unendurable pain. I did not have any way to explain to her why she was being put through this pain, and it will haunt me to the end of my days. Yet, I don’t know at what point on the spectrum of her last five years we would have said, “All right, this is the day. This is the day that it is unbearable. This is the day that we as a family have to decide.”

This is — I guess — my question. It is easier in the case of someone who is dying of cancer and worries they will lose the capacity to consent. How do we find the moment in which the life of someone with Alzheimer’s disease is deemed to be unbearable?

Senator Wallin: Thank you, Senator Simons. I don’t think we can ever say that Monday, June — whatever the day is today — is the day. This is why there exists this notion of an advance request: to come to this conclusion in principle.

I have shared this here before, but there is a fellow whom I have come to know very well, Ron Posno, from London, Ontario. This man did amazing things in life. He was a teacher, a pilot, a scuba diver. He and his wife, Sandy, are in an advance care home now because he was diagnosed early on in 2016 with cognitive impairment. He became, at that point, an advocate for MAID and for advance directives. He has been everywhere, on podcasts — mine included — and documentaries.

He sat down and put his mind to this because he knew that this was inevitable, as you did with your mother and as I did with mine. He wrote a list of eight things. It helped clarify his thinking, and it has helped clarify mine over the years: When I am unable to recognize or cognitively and adequately respond with appropriate emotion and thought to family members, care providers or friends; when I become persistently abusive, either verbally and/or physically; when I become frequently lost or wander without awareness or knowledge of my whereabouts; when I require physical restraints or a locked door; when I present symptoms of depression or paranoia or melancholia or elective muteness; when I frequently experience visual, auditory, olfactory or tactile hallucinations; when I require assisted personal care because I am frequently incontinent, or when I am unable to eat, clean or dress myself without assistance.

This is what he is guiding us to do. We can’t know that Tuesday of next week is the day. We are going to know in our living state. If we have some combination or all of these things — God forbid — that would be the time. He has done this for us. He has done the homework. He has said:

Think about this. Create your own list. Use my list. Help your family. Help the medical professional, because they can assess these things. The people in the care homes can assess these things.

There is a way not to know a precise moment, but we’ve also learned from the experience of those who had to take their own lives, people who walked into Lake Ontario, or Audrey, who made this decision before Christmas in her own family life, because she didn’t want to go through that or put her family through that another year because it was so close. But if she lost that ability to say, “Now,” or if she lost the ability to say, “I consent. I agree,” then it was going to be too late.

Why would we do that to people, saying, “You have to take your own life,” when we can clearly say to our families, our loved ones, lawyers, medical professionals, society and the world:

We know when we’ve lost quality of life. We know when we’ve lost meaning in life. We know when we’ve lost our sense of self. Please, let me use, and take advantage of, the choices that exist in law.

I think that is what is at the core of this.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Wallin, when you introduced this bill in 2022, I asked you a question about independent witnesses who are required by your bill to certify the declaration that’s made by the person who wants to have the future medically assisted death.

At that point, I was asking about a definition for it. You weren’t sure at that point, but seeing that you are introducing a lot of the same bill here, I checked out that portion of the Criminal Code and found the definition for “independent witness.”

My question to you today then is this: In your bill, under subsection 3.22(e), it states about those independent witnesses “. . . a medical practitioner has certified that . . . .”, and then “(iii) each witness is an independent witness as described in subsection (5).” That’s where the Criminal Code part comes in.

In that definition, there are certain things that the medical practitioner would probably be able to ascertain, but I think there are some things that they probably would not be able to necessarily certify. One of those that they would have to certify is:

(a) know or believe that they are a beneficiary under the will of the person making the request, or a recipient, in any other way, of a financial or other material benefit resulting from that person’s death;

There are a couple of other things about which I am a little less sure whether they should be dealt with by that independent witness, or whether the medical practitioner is the proper person to provide that certification. I’m wondering how you would respond to that.

Senator Wallin: The circumstances and the changes in the law, the Truchon case and the moves in Quebec, have taken us down the road, and I think it will change the study and the response in the committee, and perhaps even the definitions. That’s why I have put this forward in this way, which is, let’s wrestle this stuff.)

We are not here to do the easy stuff. We are here to do the hard stuff. We do need to find that.

The medical practitioner, as it stands in Canada, is still under the Criminal Code of Canada. They must be given safety and protection. They need to have other sources feeding into them, particularly if they are not aware of this patient, if for some reason it is somebody they don’t know. That is why building the body of evidence over time and over years is so important. If there is one sole survivor and they are going to inherit the millions, then there has to be other supporting evidence around that.

I know situations where a husband and two children have literally been on three sides of this issue, not two. There is no way to predict, anticipate or prevent what happens. People who have agreed with their mother, with their loved one, that whatever she wants she can have, when it comes to it, when the moment arrives, they lose their willingness and ability to participate. The person has to be protected in that situation, too.

Those are my primary two concerns, which are the person who sought this and the person who must deliver it. We need to find six ways to Sunday to protect them both, to make sure the patient gets what they need and the provider is protected. It’s going to be that way until we take this kind of an issue out of the Criminal Code and make it a health and care issue.

Quebec has done the best it can, given the circumstances, by asking its prosecutors not to prosecute. That’s not a good way. We really have to say this is about life. It’s about the end of life. We need to give people — I keep coming back to it — choices about their life, not force them into some situation where they have to go and take their own life in some horrible situation, or stockpile sleeping pills. I have heard so many stories about this, it just makes me sick to my stomach.

Let’s give people this choice. Let’s protect everybody who is involved. Whatever kind of process we come up with, that we think is best and can recommend, that will be progress down the road.

I would like to present a bill that says to take this out of the Criminal Code completely and forever. That’s a complicated thing to do. I have had this conversation with the law clerks more times than I care.

We need to keep making progress. Here we are in this country, and the only reason governments act and there are changes in the law is when a court intervenes, when some family is going through some tragic or difficult situation, whether it’s Audrey Parker, the Truchons or Carter. We can remember back to Sue Rodriguez and even in our own province the Robert Latimer case.

We put people in such difficult situations because we’re unwilling as legislators to make the hard call. We really have to do the work on this and make some small progress toward choice.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.

Although Parliament’s online Legislative summary states that no similar bill was introduced in previous Parliaments, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Pamela Wallin, states that similar bills have been introduced, debated, and partially passed in several Parliaments over the last decade..

Bill S-232: Respecting Non-Disclosure Agreements (passed to 2nd reading 12 June 2025)

Bill S-1001: Continuing Gore Mutual Insurance Company under Laws of Quebec (passed to committee 11 June 2025)

Senate: 1^streading completed 3 June 2025, 2nd reading completed 11 June 2025. Passed to Committee on Banking, Commerce, and the Economy; no activity yet reported.

Sponsor(s): Senate Private Bill, Senator Tony Laffreda.

Official Posting: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-1001

Summary:

To authorize Gore Mutual Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec.

Commentary:

The bill’s preamble states that:

The Gore Mutual Insurance Company (“the Company”), having its principal place of business in the City of Cambridge, in the Province of Ontario, has set out in its petition

(a) that the Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“the provincial company”) was incorporated in 1839 under the laws of the Province of Upper Canada under the provisions of An Act to authorize the Establishment of Mutual Insurance Companies in the several Districts of this Province, chapter XVIII of the Statutes of Upper Canada, 6 William IV, 1836,

(b) that the Company was incorporated in 1937 by a special Act of Parliament, An Act to incorporate Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company, chapter 48 of the Statutes of Canada, 1937,

(c) that the Company acquired by agreement the provincial company and that, under the provisions of the special Act, the provincial company was then deemed to be merged into the Company,

(d) that, under the provisions of the special Act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act applied to the Company,

(e) that the Company changed its name to Gore Mutual Insurance Company in 1959 by a special Act of Parliament, An Act respecting Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company, chapter 61 of the Statutes of Canada, 1959,

(f) that the Company is governed by the Insurance Companies Act,

(g) that the Company wishes to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec,

(h) that the policyholders of the Company entitled to vote approved, by a two-thirds majority vote at an annual and special meeting of the Company, that the Company apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec and petition Parliament for authorization to do so, and

(i) that there is no legislative provision authorizing an insurance company incorporated under the laws of Canada to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of a province.

The bill’s Sponsor, Hon. Tony Loffreda, explained at second reading that:

Bill before S-1001 is fairly straightforward. Essentially, the federal corporation Gore Mutual is asking the Parliament of Canada to approve its merger with the Quebec corporation Beneva. Back in January 2025, Gore Mutual, one of Canada’s oldest mutual insurance companies for fire, accident and miscellaneous risks, and Beneva, Canada’s largest mutual insurance company, announced their intention to combine their operations to stimulate future growth. For its part, Beneva was created in 2020 with the coming together of La Capitale and SSQ Insurance. Today, with its more than 5,500 employees, it is the largest insurance mutual in Canada, with more than 3.5 million members and customers. As of December 2024, Beneva had $27.5 billion in assets and $4.2 billion in total equity.

Ultimately, this merger unites Canada’s largest and oldest mutual insurance companies, creating a stronger, more stable Canadian-owned option in a rapidly consolidating industry facing numerous challenges. Unlike foreign or public insurers, mutual companies reinvest profits into local communities. The merger will result in over $8 billion in premiums and $28.5 billion in assets, strengthening domestic competition and insurance availability at a critical time. Together, they will become the seventh-largest insurer in Canada by total premiums.

Senator McPhedran: I still feel puzzled after your explanation, so I would ask exactly how facilitating this corporate merger serves the public good? You mentioned that customers would benefit, but could you give us some specific examples of benefits to customers, please?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. First of all, there is a difference between a mutual insurance company and a corporation, a stock company. Merging two strong companies is creating a stronger entity that will be able to serve customers better and compete with the corporations. For example, the profits of a corporation are given to the shareholders, right? The shareholders benefit. With a mutual, it’s the members who benefit, and the investments are reinvested in the community.

By creating a stronger mutual insurance company, communities prosper and grow. A mutual company is owned by the policyholders as opposed to — for example, Gore and Beneva, which are mutuals. If we look at Intact Financial Corporation and Manulife, they are corporations, so only the shareholders will benefit.

It is reported that no similar bills were introduced during the previous sessions of Parliaments.

Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Print

Canada – Federal – 45th Parliament

Status and Summaries of Bills (as of 215 October 2025)

Bills Passed into Law

Bills Pending in the House of Commons

Commentary:

Commentary:

Bills Pending in the Senate

Paradigm of Tolerance and Charitable Love: Venerable Pierre Toussaint

Turning A New Page

The Duty to Participate: beginning a new conversation.

Canada Federal Election 2025

The Church in a Culture of Indifference

Disability, Theology & Spiritual Formation Certificate

Quebec Provincial Election 2026

Prince Edward Island Provincial Election 2027

Manitoba Provincial Election 2027

Northwest Territories General Election 2027

Disability, Theology & Spiritual Formation Certificate

Quebec Provincial Election 2026

Prince Edward Island Provincial Election 2027

Manitoba Provincial Election 2027

Northwest Territories General Election 2027