Don Davies

New Commission to Review Wrongful Convictions

## Summary This bill creates an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission to replace the current minister-led process for reviewing possible wrongful convictions. It sets out who can apply, how reviews work, what powers the Commission has to investigate, and what remedies it can order. It also requires public reporting, outreach, and supports for applicants in need. The law comes into force on a date set by the Governor in Council. - Creates an arm’s‑length Commission with a Chief Commissioner and 4–8 other commissioners (s. 696.71(1), Part XXI.2). - Lets eligible people apply for a review; the Commission can investigate and either direct a new trial/hearing or refer the case to a court of appeal (Part XXI.1 — Decision; Remedies). - Allows interim release rules to apply once an application is found admissible, similar to an appeal (Criminal Code s. 679(7)). - Authorizes supports for applicants in need, including translation, basic necessities, and help getting legal assistance (s. 696.84(1)–(2)). - Requires published policies, decisions (with safeguards), and annual reports with disaggregated data and timelines (Part XXI.2 — Policies; Annual Report). - Includes a 5‑year parliamentary review and then every 10 years (Part XXI.1 — Parliamentary Review). ## What it means for you - Households and families - If a family member has a conviction or certain related findings, they can apply for a review to an independent body rather than the Minister of Justice. The Commission must give regular status updates (Part XXI.1 — Review; Handling of application). - If the person has an admissible application, they may seek release from custody while the review or any new hearing proceeds, under the usual bail-on-appeal rules (Criminal Code s. 679(7)). - People convicted or found not criminally responsible - Who is eligible: people found guilty under federal law (including youth cases and guilty pleas), those discharged under s. 730, people designated dangerous or long‑term offenders, and people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (Part XXI.1 — Application for review). - Appeals first: applications are normally inadmissible if a final appeal decision is still possible, but the Commission can accept earlier in limited cases (e.g., significant new matter, time passed, reasons for no appeal) (Part XXI.1 — Admissibility). - Outcomes: if there are reasonable grounds that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and it is in the interests of justice, the Commission must direct a new trial/hearing or refer the case to the court of appeal; otherwise it must dismiss the application (Part XXI.1 — Decision; Remedies). - Proof standard: a remedy may be granted even if innocence is not established at this stage (Part XXI.1 — Innocence). - Deceased applicants: only a referral to a court of appeal or dismissal is allowed (Part XXI.1 — Deceased applicant). - Applicants in need - Possible supports include referrals to community services, translation and interpretation, help with necessities like food and housing if without means, and help obtaining legal assistance to make an application or respond to an investigation report (s. 696.84(1)–(2)). - Indigenous, Black, and other overrepresented groups - The Minister must seek a diverse Commission membership. The Commission must consider distinct challenges faced by certain populations, with particular attention to Indigenous and Black applicants, when deciding cases (Part XXI.2 — Commissioners; Part XXI.1 — Decision factors). - Victims and the public - The Commission must publish information about its mandate and its policies; it must also publish its decisions while protecting confidential information and the proper administration of justice (Part XXI.2 — Outreach; Policies; Publication of decisions). - Policies must address how notices and information are provided to victims and other interested persons (Part XXI.2 — Duty to adopt certain policies). - Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada - The Commission can direct its employees to notify these bodies to ensure applicants are not blocked from programs, services, or conditional release because they applied (Part XXI.2 — Powers (a.1)). - Lawyers and courts - Courts of appeal may receive referrals treated as if the applicant filed an appeal. The Commission may also ask a court of appeal for an advisory opinion on questions in a case (Part XXI.1 — Remedies; Court of Appeal Opinion Reference). - New trials or hearings can be directed to any proper court (Part XXI.1 — Remedies). - Transition from the old process - Existing ministerial applications may be transferred to the Commission with the applicant’s consent. If no consent and the Minister’s preliminary assessment was done, the old process continues; if not done, the application is deemed not made and the person can apply anew to the Commission (Transitional Provisions). - A prior ministerial dismissal does not bar a new application under the new scheme (Transitional Provisions). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill requires public funds (Royal Recommendation) to establish and operate a new federal Commission, compensate commissioners and staff, and contract services (Remuneration and Expenses; s. 696.84(1)) (Recommendation; Part XXI.2). - Authorized spending areas: - Commissioner remuneration and travel (Remuneration; Expenses) (Part XXI.2). - Hiring employees under the Public Service Employment Act (Part XXI.2 — Staff). - Contracts for investigations and expert services (Part XXI.2 — Powers (d)). - Supports to applicants in need, including necessities and legal assistance (s. 696.84(1)–(2)). - Outreach, website publication, and annual reporting (Part XXI.2 — Outreach; Annual report). - Downstream fiscal impacts: - Courts of appeal and trial courts may see added workload from referrals and new trials/hearings (Part XXI.1 — Remedies). Amounts: Data unavailable. - Correctional and parole processes may require adjustments to avoid barriers for applicants (Part XXI.2 — Powers (a.1)). Amounts: Data unavailable. - No specific dollar amounts or multi‑year appropriations are stated in the bill. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Independence and access: Moving reviews from the Minister to an arm’s‑length Commission should improve fairness and reduce real or perceived political influence (Part XXI.2 — Commission established; Mandate). - Faster, clearer process: Required status updates, published policies, and decision publication improve transparency and predictability for applicants and the public (Part XXI.1 — Handling of application; Part XXI.2 — Policies; Publication of decisions). - Better fit for complex cases: The Commission has investigation powers under the Inquiries Act and can hire experts, which may uncover new information in wrongful conviction claims (Part XXI.1 — Investigation; Powers (4)–(5)). - Safety valve on appeals: The Commission can accept applications even when appeals were not pursued if specific factors are met, which may help people who faced barriers to appealing (Part XXI.1 — Admissibility; Exception). - Equity focus: Decision factors explicitly require attention to challenges faced by Indigenous and Black applicants, and the Commission’s composition must reflect Canadian diversity (Part XXI.1 — Decision factors; Part XXI.2 — Commissioners; Diversity). - Practical support: Translation, basic needs, and help obtaining legal assistance can make the process accessible to low‑income and marginalized applicants (s. 696.84(2)). - Accountability: Annual reports with disaggregated data, outcomes, and timelines, plus a parliamentary review after 5 years, create clear public oversight (Part XXI.2 — Annual report; Part XXI.1 — Parliamentary Review). ## Opponents' View - Cost and growth of bureaucracy: A new federal body with commissioners, staff, contractors, and applicant supports will add ongoing costs; the bill provides no cost cap or estimate (Part XXI.2 — Remuneration; Powers; s. 696.84(2)). Amounts: Data unavailable. - Finality and court burden: Allowing referrals and new trials may increase court workloads and prolong litigation, affecting victims and witnesses and straining provincial justice resources (Part XXI.1 — Remedies). Quantitative impact: Data unavailable. - Public safety and detention concerns: Treating admissible applicants like appellants for interim release could increase releases of serious offenders pending review (Criminal Code s. 679(7)). The bill does not set added safeguards beyond existing bail criteria. - Low threshold for intervention: The Commission may grant a remedy without proof of innocence, which some view as too low and potentially disruptive to settled verdicts (Part XXI.1 — Innocence; Decision; Remedies). - Policy oversight: Commission policies are not statutory instruments, limiting external scrutiny before they take effect (Part XXI.2 — Statutory Instruments Act (4)). - Overlap with social services: Funding necessities like food and housing for applicants may duplicate provincial programs and create uneven support across applicants (s. 696.84(2)(c)). Coordination requirements are not specified (Data unavailable). - Transition complexity: Split pathways for legacy cases (consent to transfer, preliminary assessments, late consent) may cause confusion or delay for applicants and counsel (Transitional Provisions).

Clearer Release Notices for Crime Victims

## Summary This bill changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require clearer information for victims. When officials tell a victim the dates an offender is eligible or scheduled for temporary absences, work release, parole, or statutory release, they must also explain how those dates were set. The change applies to both the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC). - Adds a required plain explanation of how eligibility and release dates were determined (s. 1 amending CCRA 26(1)(a)(iv), 26(1)(c)(i); s. 2 amending 142(1)(a)(iv), 142(1)(b)(iii)). - Covers unescorted and escorted temporary absences, work release, parole, and statutory release (s. 1–2). - Does not change when offenders become eligible or are released; it changes what is disclosed to victims (s. 1–2). - Includes coordinating rules so this wording lines up with a 2015 victims’ law if both are in force (Coordinating Amendments, 2015, c.11). - Takes effect on Royal Assent, because the bill has no delayed coming-into-force clause (standard federal practice). ## What it means for you - Households (victims of crime who ask for updates) - You will receive, with each eligibility or review date, a short explanation of how that date was calculated under the law (s. 1; s. 2). - If a release date is set for a temporary absence, work release, parole, or statutory release, you will also get an explanation of how that date was set (s. 1; s. 2). - This applies only if you have asked to receive information from CSC or PBC, as under current law (CCRA ss. 26, 142 as amended). - Workers (CSC and PBC staff) - You must add a clear explanation to victim notifications that list eligibility, review, or set release dates for the measures named above (s. 1–2). - You may need to adjust templates, guidance, and training to give consistent, accurate explanations that follow privacy limits in the CCRA (s. 1–2). - Offenders - No change to your eligibility, review, or release timelines. The bill affects disclosure to victims only (s. 1–2). - Local and provincial governments - No direct mandate. Federal CSC and PBC handle these disclosures (s. 1–2). - Service users (victim services organizations) - You may receive fewer clarification requests from clients if explanations reduce confusion. Volume impacts are uncertain. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriation in the bill (s. 1–2). - No new fees or revenues (s. 1–2). - The bill adds disclosure duties that may increase CSC/PBC administrative work (templates, staff time, training). No official estimate provided. Data unavailable. - Coordinating amendments are technical and have no stated fiscal impact (Coordinating Amendments, 2015, c.11). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves transparency for victims by requiring an explanation with each eligibility, review, or set release date, not just the date itself (s. 1–2). - Helps victims plan for participation in parole processes and personal safety, because they know how dates are calculated and may change (s. 1–2). - Standardizes disclosures across CSC (s. 26) and PBC (s. 142), which may reduce confusion and follow-up calls (s. 1–2). - Narrow scope limits cost and risk; it does not alter sentence calculations or release rules, only the content of notices (s. 1–2). - Coordinates with the 2015 victims’ law to avoid conflicting wording if provisions come into force at different times (Coordinating Amendments, 2015, c.11). ## Opponents' View - Adds administrative burden to CSC and PBC to craft case-specific explanations; could require new templates, training, and quality control. No cost estimate provided (s. 1–2). Data unavailable. - Risks inconsistent or unclear explanations across cases, which could trigger complaints or require re-issuing notices (s. 1–2). - Complexity of sentence and eligibility calculations in some files raises risk of errors in explanations, even if the dates themselves are correct (s. 1–2). - Disclosure must still respect privacy limits in the CCRA; staff may need guidance to avoid sharing protected information while explaining calculations (s. 1–2). - Coordinating clause with the 2015 law could create short-term implementation complexity if provisions take effect in close sequence (Coordinating Amendments, 2015, c.11).

Two-Month GST/HST Holiday on Key Purchases

## Summary This bill creates a temporary GST/HST holiday for a defined list of goods and some food-and-beverage services from December 14, 2024 to February 15, 2025. It does this by “zero‑rating” those items during the window, which means sellers charge 0% GST/HST on eligible sales while keeping normal input tax credit rules (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). It also waives GST/HST on qualifying imports and on items brought into HST provinces during the same period (Schedule VII and Schedule X amendments). - Zero‑rates certain children’s items, printed books and similar media, qualifying newspapers, Christmas trees, many toys and games, video game consoles, and specified alcoholic beverages (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Zero‑rates restaurant and catering services for food, non‑alcoholic drinks, and eligible alcoholic drinks, if fully paid for and provided within the window, with limited exclusions referenced in the bill (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Applies only if the buyer pays in full and receives delivery during the window; a shipment handed to a carrier or mailed within the window counts as delivered then (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Extends the holiday to qualifying imports and to property brought into HST provinces during the window (Schedule VII and Schedule X amendments). - Does not affect items already exempt or already zero‑rated (e.g., basic groceries), and does not change separate provincial sales taxes outside the HST system (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). ## What it means for you - Households - You will not pay GST/HST on listed goods bought and delivered between December 14, 2024 and February 15, 2025. This includes children’s car seats, clothing, diapers, and footwear (as defined in the referenced regulations) (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Printed books, qualifying newspapers, scripture, and audiobooks that are spoken readings of printed books are zero‑rated during the window (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Christmas trees (natural or artificial) are zero‑rated during the window (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Toys, dolls, plush toys, board and card games, jigsaw puzzles, building sets, and similar items for children under 14 are zero‑rated. Video game consoles, game controllers, and physical game media for those consoles are also zero‑rated; digital downloads are not listed (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Restaurant and catering bills for food, non‑alcoholic drinks, and “eligible beverages” (defined alcoholic drinks) are zero‑rated if you pay and receive the service during the window, subject to a limited exclusion referenced in the bill (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - In HST provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador), the full HST drops to 0% on eligible items. In other provinces and territories, only the 5% GST drops to 0%; separate PST/QST remains unchanged (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - To qualify, you must pay in full and receive delivery during the window. For shipped orders, if the seller hands the item to a carrier or mails it during the window, it counts as delivered then (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Alcohol purchasers - Beer, wine, sake, certain fortified products up to 22.9% alcohol by volume, packaged drinks up to 7% alcohol by volume, and certain mixtures are “eligible beverages.” These are zero‑rated if paid for and delivered during the window, including in restaurants and catering (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Readers and media users - Printed books and updates, scripture, qualifying newspapers, and audiobooks that are spoken readings of printed books are zero‑rated. Certain book “bundles” (composite property) are included as defined in regulations (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Online shoppers and importers - For eligible goods, if the seller ships by common carrier, mail, or courier during the window, the sale qualifies as delivered then. Imports of eligible goods during the window should not be charged GST/HST at the border (Schedule VII amendment; Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Businesses and charities - You must charge 0% GST/HST on eligible sales in the window, but continue to claim input tax credits as usual. Keep records showing full payment and delivery occurred during the window (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Point‑of‑sale systems and invoices must reflect zero‑rating for eligible items from December 14, 2024 to February 15, 2025, and normal rates before and after. - For shipped orders, document the date you gave the goods to a carrier, mailed them, or made them available for pickup to support zero‑rating (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - The import and “brought into a participating province” rules align with the zero‑rating list, affecting self‑assessment and border treatment for eligible goods (Schedule VII and Schedule X amendments). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key fiscal mechanics - The bill zero‑rates GST/HST on specified supplies for December 14, 2024–February 15, 2025, which reduces federal GST revenue and the provincial HST component in participating provinces for those items (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Imports of listed goods and property brought into participating provinces are also zero‑rated during the window, reducing border and self‑assessed GST/HST on those items (Schedule VII and Schedule X amendments). - No direct appropriations are included. Administrative costs for implementation and guidance are not specified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Immediate, visible relief at checkout on common family purchases and restaurant meals, without applications or delays; the tax drops to 0% on eligible sales during the window (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Supports restaurants and hospitality by removing GST/HST on food, non‑alcoholic drinks, and eligible alcoholic beverages for on‑premise and catered service during the window (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Helps parents and students by zero‑rating children’s clothing, car seats, diapers, toys, books, newspapers, and scripture during a high‑spending season (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Time‑limited design contains the fiscal impact while using existing GST/HST systems, which may be simpler to administer than creating a new benefit program (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Clear timing rules (pay and deliver during the window; shipping deemed delivered when handed to carrier or mailed) reduce disputes over eligibility (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). ## Opponents' View - Broad tax holidays are not targeted. Savings scale with how much a household spends in the window, so higher spenders may receive more of the benefit. Distributional impact estimates are not provided. Data unavailable. - Complex eligibility and timing rules (full payment, delivery window, special shipping deeming, cross‑references to other schedules and regulations) could cause compliance errors and disputes, especially around returns and backorders (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Short duration may shift purchases into the window rather than lower overall yearly costs, while still reducing tax revenue for the period. Net economic effect is not quantified. Data unavailable. - Including alcoholic beverages, video game consoles, and controllers may dilute the focus on essentials, raising questions about cost‑effectiveness (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI). - Businesses must reconfigure point‑of‑sale systems twice (start and end of window), train staff, and maintain extra documentation, which adds administrative burden without compensation (Bill Part XI of Schedule VI; Schedule VII and Schedule X amendments).

New Trust Protects Unpaid Produce Suppliers

## Summary This bill creates a “deemed trust” to protect unpaid sellers of perishable fruits and vegetables when a buyer goes bankrupt, goes into receivership, or seeks court protection to restructure debt. If the seller follows set steps and is still unpaid, the produce and the money from selling it are held in trust for the seller and do not go to other creditors (BIA new section after s.81.6; CCAA new section after s.8). - Unpaid sellers get first claim to the produce and its sale proceeds, ahead of other creditors, if they gave proper notice and payment terms were 30 days or less (BIA new s.(1)(a)-(c); CCAA new s.(1)(a)-(c)). - The trust covers the produce even if repackaged or lightly transformed, and also covers commingled sale proceeds (BIA new s.(7); CCAA new s.(4)). - Assets in the trust are not part of the bankruptcy or restructuring estate (BIA s.67(1)(a) reference in new s.(2); CCAA new s.(2)). - Courts can give directions, and suppliers can ask the court to resolve disputes (BIA new s.(3)-(4)). - Provincial trust law applies and prevails in case of conflict with these new sections (BIA new s.(6); CCAA new s.(3)). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct change. This bill sets creditor priorities during insolvency. It does not set prices or consumer rules. Data on indirect price impacts is unavailable. - Farmers and other produce suppliers - If you sell perishable fruits or vegetables on terms of 30 days or less, include a notice on the invoice (or give notice within 30 days of the buyer’s receipt) in the prescribed form stating you intend to use this trust if the buyer becomes insolvent (BIA new s.(1)(a); CCAA new s.(1)(a)). - If the buyer does not pay on the due date and then becomes bankrupt, goes into receivership, or seeks court protection to restructure, the produce and related sale proceeds are deemed held in trust for you (BIA new s.(1); CCAA new s.(1)). - You may apply to court if you are aggrieved by an act, omission, or decision of the buyer, trustee, or receiver (BIA new s.(4)). - Buyers of produce (wholesalers, retailers, processors using raw produce) - If you buy perishable fruits or vegetables on terms of 30 days or less and fail to pay when due, the goods and their sale proceeds may be subject to a trust for the unpaid supplier if the supplier gave timely notice (BIA new s.(1); CCAA new s.(1)). - In insolvency or restructuring, property subject to this trust is excluded from your estate and cannot be used to pay other creditors (BIA s.67(1)(a) via new s.(2); CCAA new s.(2)). - You, a trustee, or a receiver can ask the court for directions on how to apply these rules (BIA new s.(3)). - Secured and unsecured lenders - In an insolvency or restructuring, produce and related sale proceeds covered by this trust are not available to satisfy your claims, even if commingled with other funds (BIA new s.(7) and s.(2); CCAA new s.(2), s.(4)). - Priority for these trust assets is ahead of other claims because they are not property of the debtor’s estate (BIA s.67(1)(a) via new s.(2); CCAA new s.(2)). - Insolvency professionals and courts - Trustees, receivers, and monitors must identify trust assets and handle them for the benefit of unpaid suppliers who met the notice and term conditions (BIA new s.(1)-(2), s.(7); CCAA new s.(1)-(2), s.(4)). - Courts may receive applications for directions or disputes from purchasers, trustees, receivers, or suppliers (BIA new s.(3)-(4)). - Effective date - The coming-into-force date is not provided in the text supplied. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no direct appropriations in the bill text). - The bill creates no new program spending or appropriations. It changes creditor priorities in insolvency law (Bill Short Title and amendments). - Possible administrative or court-processing costs are not discussed in the bill. Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - It protects cash flow for growers and shippers, who often deliver produce before payment and face high loss risk when buyers fail (BIA new s.(1); CCAA new s.(1)). - It gives a clear, fast remedy: a simple invoice notice within 30 days and 30-days-or-less payment terms create the trust if non-payment occurs, without requiring separate security registrations (BIA new s.(1)(a)-(c)). - The trust follows the goods and proceeds even if repackaged or commingled, which matches how produce moves through the supply chain (BIA new s.(7); CCAA new s.(4)). - Trust assets are excluded from the estate, so recovery is more certain and quicker for unpaid suppliers (BIA s.67(1)(a) via new s.(2); CCAA new s.(2)). - The scope is narrow: only perishable fruits and vegetables, only short payment terms, and only when timely notice is given, which limits broader market impact (BIA new s.(1)(a)-(b); CCAA new s.(1)(a)-(b)). ## Opponents' View - It reduces the pool of assets available to other creditors, including secured lenders, because trust property is excluded from the estate, which could shift losses to them (BIA s.67(1)(a) via new s.(2); CCAA new s.(2)). - It may increase complexity and costs in insolvency due to tracing commingled proceeds and determining when repackaging or transformation has left the “nature” unchanged, leading to more disputes (BIA new s.(7); CCAA new s.(4)). - By giving a super-priority-like outcome to one sector, it could raise uncertainty for credit markets serving buyers of produce; lenders may adjust terms or monitoring to manage trust exposure. Data unavailable. - Different provincial trust laws will apply and prevail in case of conflict, which could create uneven outcomes across provinces and increase legal uncertainty (BIA new s.(6); CCAA new s.(3)). - Compliance risks exist for suppliers: missing the 30-day notice window or using payment terms longer than 30 days would forfeit the trust protection, which could lead to litigation over proper notice and timing (BIA new s.(1)(a)-(b); CCAA new s.(1)(a)-(b)).

Stronger Sentencing for Attacks on Health Workers, Responders

## Summary Bill C-321 would change the Criminal Code to make assaults or threats against people who provide health services (including personal care services) and first responders, while on duty, an aggravating factor at sentencing. It does not create a new crime or change maximum penalties. It applies when a judge sentences someone for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm or for assault-related offences (Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269) (Bill, new section after Criminal Code s.269.01). - Judges must treat the victim’s role (health services provider or first responder on duty) as an aggravating factor at sentencing (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Applies to uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and to assault offences: assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and unlawfully causing bodily harm (Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269). - Covers people who provide health services, including personal care services; and first responders engaged in their duty (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - May result in longer jail sentences or stricter probation for convicted offenders; judges still sentence within existing ranges (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Does not change police powers, charging standards, bail rules, or the elements of the offences. ## What it means for you - Households - If someone is convicted of assaulting or threatening a health worker or first responder who is on duty, the court must consider that fact to increase the seriousness at sentencing (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - This change does not affect day-to-day access to care or emergency services. - Health services workers (including personal care workers) - Judges must consider your on-duty status as an aggravating factor when sentencing a person convicted of assaulting you or threatening death or bodily harm (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Applies in hospitals, clinics, long-term care, home care, and other health settings where services are provided. The bill does not define “health services” beyond noting it includes “personal care services.” - First responders - Judges must consider your on-duty status as an aggravating factor when sentencing a person convicted of assaulting you or threatening death or bodily harm (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - The bill does not define “first responder,” which may require the court to determine who is covered in specific cases. - Accused persons and defendants - If convicted of the listed offences against an on-duty health services provider or first responder, you face a higher likelihood of a harsher sentence, within existing penalty ranges (Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269; Bill, new section after s.269.01). - No new offences are created; the change applies only at sentencing. - Employers and facilities (hospitals, clinics, long-term care homes, ambulance services) - You may need to help document a victim’s role and on-duty status to support sentencing submissions (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Workplace safety rules, reporting duties, and security procedures are unchanged by this bill. - Provincial/territorial justice systems - Crown prosecutors will need to lead evidence of the victim’s role and duty status at sentencing. Court workload impact is unknown. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill contains no direct appropriations, taxes, or fees (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Possible downstream effects, such as longer sentences increasing custody or supervision costs for provinces/territories and the federal system, are not estimated. Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - The bill gives clear direction that assaults and threats against on-duty health workers and first responders are more serious, promoting consistent sentencing across courts (Bill, “shall consider” language; new section after s.269.01). - It covers both threats to cause death or bodily harm and assault-related offences, addressing a range of common harms in care and response settings (Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269). - Including “personal care services” ensures coverage for support workers who often face risk in long-term care and home care (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Judges retain discretion within existing ranges, so the bill targets sentencing principles without expanding offences or maximum penalties (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - Supporters argue the change may deter some offences and signal system support for these workers. Evidence of deterrence effect is not provided. Data unavailable. ## Opponents' View - Judges already must weigh aggravating factors under Criminal Code s.718.2; courts often treat assaults on on-duty workers as aggravating, so the bill may be redundant and have limited impact (Criminal Code s.718.2(a)). - “First responder” is not defined, which could cause uneven application and litigation over who qualifies (Bill, new section after s.269.01). - The scope is narrow: it excludes other common behaviours like criminal harassment, intimidation, or mischief unless they fit the listed offences, limiting practical reach (Criminal Code s.264.1(1)(a), 266–269). - There is no evidence the change will reduce incidents; it acts after harm occurs and relies on sentencing-based deterrence, which may be weak. Data unavailable. - If sentences lengthen, custody and supervision costs may rise for provinces/territories and the federal system; no cost estimate is provided. Data unavailable.

Canada bans air export of slaughter horses

## Summary This bill bans the export by air of live horses for slaughter or for fattening for slaughter. It also requires anyone flying a horse out of Canada to file a declaration saying the horse is not for slaughter. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) would enforce the rules. The law would start 18 months after it receives Royal Assent. - Air export of horses for slaughter or feedlot use would stop; other purposes (breeding, sport, work) may continue with paperwork (Prohibitions). - Every air export of a horse would require a declaration to the Minister that it is not for slaughter or fattening (Prohibitions). - Providing false or misleading information would be an offence, with fines up to CAD $250,000 and up to 2 years in prison on indictment (Offence and punishment). - CFIA and CBSA are named to administer and enforce the Act (Related Amendments: CFIA Act; CBSA Act). - The Act binds federal and provincial governments as well (Binding on His Majesty). - The law would take effect 18 months after Royal Assent, giving time to adjust (Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct changes for most people. The bill targets a specific export practice. Data on effects on consumer prices is unavailable. - Horse owners and exporters - You cannot export a horse by air for slaughter or for fattening for slaughter once the law is in force (Prohibitions). - For any horse you fly out of Canada, you must submit a written declaration, in the form set by the Minister, stating to the best of your knowledge the horse is not for slaughter or fattening. The Minister may require extra documents (Prohibitions). - If you give false or misleading information, you face offences. Maximum penalties are a fine up to $250,000 or up to 2 years in prison on indictment; or up to $50,000 or up to 6 months in prison on summary conviction (Offence and punishment). - There is a “due diligence” defence. If you can show you took all reasonable steps to follow the law, you may avoid conviction (Due diligence). - The rules start 18 months after Royal Assent. Plan documentation and contracts with this timeline (Coming into Force). - The bill applies only to exports by air. It does not restrict exports by land or sea (Prohibitions). - Airlines, freight forwarders, and airports - Shipments of horses by air will require the exporter’s declaration before departure. Expect document checks at export points (Prohibitions; Related Amendments). - Carrying a horse for slaughter by air would not be lawful. Carriers that act as the exporter of record could face liability if documentation is false or missing (Prohibitions; Offence and punishment). - Breeders, trainers, and sport/companion horse owners - Air export for breeding, sport, or companionship remains allowed, but only with the required declaration and any other documents the Minister prescribes (Prohibitions). - Provincial and local governments - Governments are also bound by the Act (Binding on His Majesty). - CFIA and CBSA will lead enforcement at federal exit points (Related Amendments). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations or funding levels are stated in the bill. Data unavailable. - CFIA and CBSA are assigned administration and enforcement roles; any added staffing, training, and IT costs are not quantified. Data unavailable (Related Amendments). - Potential fine revenue from offences is not estimated. Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves animal welfare by ending long, cramped flights for horses destined for slaughter, which can cause stress and injury (Preamble). - Targets only slaughter-related exports; other air exports remain legal with a simple declaration, limiting disruption to sport and breeding sectors (Prohibitions). - Uses existing enforcement bodies (CFIA, CBSA), which may ease implementation and compliance checks at airports (Related Amendments). - Strong penalties and an offence for false statements deter non-compliance (Offence and punishment). - An 18‑month phase‑in gives businesses time to adjust contracts, logistics, and documentation (Coming into Force). ## Opponents' View - Ends a line of business for exporters and related workers who ship horses by air for slaughter; the bill provides no transition aid. Economic impact is unquantified (Prohibitions; Data unavailable). - Because the bill covers only air transport, shipments could shift to land or sea routes, potentially undermining the goal while changing logistics rather than eliminating the trade (Prohibitions). - Reliance on exporter declarations makes verifying end use abroad challenging; enforcement may be difficult and resource‑intensive (Prohibitions; Related Amendments). - New paperwork for all legitimate air exports of horses (e.g., sport, breeding) adds administrative burden and risk of penalties for errors (Prohibitions; Offence and punishment). - Implementation costs for CFIA and CBSA are not disclosed; lack of resources could lead to uneven enforcement or delays at airports (Related Amendments; Data unavailable).

Plastics Removed From CEPA Toxic List

## Summary This bill removes “plastic manufactured items” from the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). It has one clause and takes effect on Royal Assent. It does not change any other part of CEPA or add new programs (Bill, clause 1). - Removes the legal basis in CEPA to regulate “plastic manufactured items” as a toxic substance (CEPA s.93). - Could affect federal rules that relied on that listing, such as the Single-Use Plastics Prohibition Regulations (SUPPR) (SUPPR RIAS). - Does not change other CEPA listings (for example, microbeads remain separately listed). - Provinces and municipalities can still set their own rules on plastics; this bill does not affect them. - No timelines are set; the change would be immediate on Royal Assent. ## What it means for you - Households - Federal CEPA powers could no longer be used to ban broad categories of plastic items as “toxic” based on the “plastic manufactured items” listing (CEPA s.93). Availability of certain single-use plastic products may change only if Ottawa amends or repeals existing regulations (SUPPR RIAS). - Provincial or municipal bans or fees on plastics would continue if they exist; this bill does not alter those laws. - Businesses (manufacturers, importers, retailers, food service) - CEPA would no longer support federal restrictions that depend on “plastic manufactured items” being on Schedule 1. Existing CEPA regulations tied to that listing would need a new legal basis or amendment to continue (CEPA s.93; SUPPR RIAS). - Compliance duties created solely under that listing could lessen if the federal government changes or withdraws related regulations. Other federal, provincial, or municipal rules would still apply. Data on timing is unavailable. - Local governments - No direct change to municipal waste or bylaw powers. Any change in federal rules could shift more responsibility for plastics management to provinces and municipalities. Data unavailable. - Federal agencies - Environment and Climate Change Canada would update CEPA’s Schedule 1 and assess any regulations that rely on the deleted item (Bill, clause 1; CEPA s.93). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note published. The bill has no appropriations, taxes, or fees (Bill, clause 1). - Administrative work would include updating Schedule 1 and reviewing any dependent regulations. Quantified costs: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - The Schedule 1 listing for “plastic manufactured items” is overly broad and does not meet CEPA’s standard for toxicity; a Federal Court set aside the listing as unreasonable. Removing it aligns the law with that ruling and reduces legal risk (2023 FC 1511). - Deleting the item prevents federal overreach and restores regulatory certainty for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers who faced bans based on a broad category rather than specific harmful substances (2023 FC 1511; CEPA s.93). - Businesses would avoid compliance costs linked to category-wide bans, and supply chains would face fewer disruptions. Specific savings are not quantified in the bill. Data unavailable. - Governments can target problematic plastics through narrower, evidence-based tools or recycling and extended producer responsibility programs under provincial authority, without using CEPA’s toxic-substance powers for broad product classes (CEPA scheme; Data unavailable). ## Opponents' View - Removing the item would undercut federal single-use plastics rules that rely on CEPA’s toxic-substance powers, weakening national efforts to reduce plastic waste and litter (CEPA s.93; SUPPR RIAS). - Canada generates about 3.3 million tonnes of plastic waste per year; about 9% is recycled, and an estimated 29,000 tonnes leak into the environment. Critics say limiting federal tools could slow progress on these problems (ECCC 2019 study). - A repeal may create a patchwork of provincial and municipal rules, raising compliance complexity and leaving gaps where no subnational rules exist. Evidence on net effect is uncertain. Data unavailable. - Narrowing CEPA’s scope to exclude a broad class may make it harder to act on emerging risks like microplastics shed from many products. While some specific plastics remain listed (for example, microbeads), opponents say source reduction is harder without this category (CEPA Schedule 1; Data unavailable).

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products)

## Summary This bill changes how Canada regulates most natural health products (NHPs) under the Food and Drugs Act. It removes NHPs from the definition of “therapeutic product,” so they are not monitored like prescription and over‑the‑counter drugs. It keeps specific safety recall powers for NHPs and carves out an exception for nicotine NHPs used in nicotine replacement therapy, which remain regulated as therapeutic products (Bill: definition; application clause). - Most NHPs would no longer be treated as “therapeutic products,” reducing the drug‑style monitoring that applies to them (Bill: definition). - Health Canada’s recall powers, related duties, and penalties would still apply to NHPs (Bill: application of ss. 21.3–21.303; new regulation‑making powers in s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02)). - NHPs with nicotine used for nicotine replacement therapy would remain regulated as therapeutic products (Bill: definition). - Two existing provisions, section 21.321 and subsection 21.8(2), would be repealed (Bill: repeals). - Prosecutors could not start or continue certain offences against NHPs for conduct between the effective date of Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, section 500, and this bill’s coming‑into‑force date (Bill: Transitional Provision). ## What it means for you - Households - Most vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, and similar NHPs would be monitored under a lighter regime than drugs. Health Canada could still recall an unsafe NHP and set penalties for not following a recall (Bill: application of ss. 21.3–21.303; s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02)). - If you use nicotine replacement therapy that is sold as an NHP, it would still be regulated like a therapeutic product, with full drug‑style monitoring (Bill: definition). - Timing: Changes take effect on the day the Act comes into force (the date of Royal Assent), which is not specified in the bill text (Bill: general structure). - Workers and health care providers - Duties tied specifically to NHPs under the provisions being repealed would end. Other recall‑related duties for NHPs would remain, per sections 21.3–21.303 (Bill: repeals; application clause). - Institutions should review updated Health Canada guidance once issued to confirm any changes to reporting or compliance steps for NHPs. Exact changes depend on how existing duties map to provisions kept or repealed (Bill: repeals; application clause). - Businesses (manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers of NHPs) - Most NHPs would no longer be subject to the full therapeutic‑product monitoring regime. Compliance obligations linked only to “therapeutic products” would no longer apply to NHPs, unless the bill explicitly preserves them (Bill: definition; application clause). - You would still be subject to recall orders, related obligations, and penalties for non‑compliance with recall duties, once regulations are made under s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02) (Bill: s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02)). - NHPs containing nicotine for nicotine replacement therapy would continue under the therapeutic‑product rules (Bill: definition). - Transitional clause: No new or ongoing proceedings for offences under ss. 31.2 or 31.4 may proceed for NHP‑related conduct during the specified past window, which could resolve certain pending matters (Bill: Transitional Provision). - Local and provincial/territorial governments - Potential adjustments to enforcement coordination on NHP recalls, as federal recall powers for NHPs remain while other drug‑style tools may no longer apply to NHPs (Bill: application clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriation is included in the bill text (Data unavailable). - The bill creates or maintains federal regulatory powers (recalls and penalties) for NHPs but removes broader therapeutic‑product monitoring from NHPs. Administrative costs or savings to Health Canada are not quantified in public documents (Data unavailable). - Any industry compliance cost changes are not quantified in the bill or official non‑partisan analyses (Data unavailable). ## Proponents' View - The bill restores a tailored approach by excluding most NHPs from “therapeutic product” status, so lower‑risk products are not regulated like drugs (Bill: definition; Summary). - It preserves key safety tools for NHPs by applying recall provisions (ss. 21.3–21.303) and by authorizing regulations for NHP recalls and penalties, keeping the ability to act on unsafe products (Bill: application clause; s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02)). - It targets higher‑risk cases by keeping nicotine NHPs used in nicotine replacement therapy under the full therapeutic‑product regime (Bill: definition). - The transitional clause prevents prosecutions for certain NHP offences during a defined past period, which proponents may view as legal clarity and fairness after earlier amendments in Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 (Bill: Transitional Provision). - By repealing section 21.321 and subsection 21.8(2), the bill removes parts of the drug‑style monitoring that were extended to NHPs, aligning oversight with product risk while retaining recalls (Bill: repeals; Summary). ## Opponents' View - Removing NHPs from “therapeutic product” status could weaken consumer protections that apply to drugs, because only a subset of monitoring tools would continue to apply to NHPs. For example, powers outside ss. 21.3–21.303 (such as certain drug‑specific post‑market tools) would no longer cover NHPs unless separately provided (Bill: definition; application clause). - Repealing section 21.321 and subsection 21.8(2) may eliminate specific safety or reporting tools currently in law; without those, oversight of NHPs could be narrower. The exact impact depends on the content of the repealed provisions in the current Act (Bill: repeals). - Safety enforcement would rely heavily on recalls and related penalties. Other interventions used for drugs, such as certain mandatory label changes or other orders outside ss. 21.3–21.303, may not be available for NHPs (Bill: application clause). - The effectiveness of the recall regime for NHPs will depend on new regulations under s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02). Until regulations are made and in force, penalties and detailed procedures may be limited (Bill: s. 30(1.2)(f.01)–(f.02)). - The transitional clause halts certain prosecutions for past NHP‑related conduct during a specified window, which could reduce accountability for violations in that period (Bill: Transitional Provision).

April Named Arab Heritage Month Nationwide

## Summary This bill designates April as Arab Heritage Month across Canada. It is a symbolic act that recognizes the history and contributions of Arab Canadians. The bill creates no programs, funding, duties, or penalties. It applies every year once in force (Short Title; Arab Heritage Month clause). - Names April as “Arab Heritage Month” nationwide (Arab Heritage Month clause). - Recognizes that Arab Canadians number “over one million” and have contributed to Canada’s social, economic, and cultural life (Preamble). - Does not mandate any actions by governments, schools, or businesses (bill text contains no mandates). - Does not create a holiday or time off work (bill text contains no such provision). ## What it means for you - Households: - April will be formally recognized as Arab Heritage Month. Community or cultural groups may reference this designation when planning events. The bill does not require events or activities (Arab Heritage Month clause). - No new holiday or paid leave is created (bill text contains no such provision). - Workers: - Work schedules and pay are unchanged. There is no statutory holiday in April from this bill (bill text contains no such provision). - Businesses: - No new compliance, reporting, or costs are required. Participation in any observances is voluntary (bill text contains no mandates). - Local governments and schools: - No required programs or ceremonies. Any recognition would be optional and determined locally (bill text contains no mandates). - Federal departments and agencies: - No required actions or funding commitments. They may choose how to acknowledge the month, but the bill does not direct them to do so (bill text contains no mandates). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $0 mandated by the bill. - The bill includes no appropriations, fees, or tax changes (bill text). - The bill creates no programs or required activities that would trigger direct federal spending (bill text). - Fiscal note: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Formal recognition by Parliament honors the contributions of Arab Canadians and reflects their long presence in Canada, including an estimated population “over one million” (Preamble). - A clear, national designation gives institutions and communities a consistent time to acknowledge Arab heritage and contributions (Arab Heritage Month clause). - The bill is low-cost because it adds no programs, regulations, or funding requirements (bill text). - Aligns with how Parliament recognizes other communities through commemorative months, providing visibility without imposing mandates (bill text structure). ## Opponents' View - The bill is symbolic only. It creates no rights, services, or protections and may have limited practical effect on daily life (bill text contains no programs or mandates). - Because it includes no funding or required activities, outcomes depend on voluntary recognition, which may vary by place and institution (bill text). - No metrics or reporting are included, so any benefits are not measured in the bill (bill text contains no evaluation or reporting provisions).

Age and consent checks for porn

## Summary This bill changes the Criminal Code to require proof of age and written consent before making, distributing, or advertising pornographic material for money. It creates new crimes and penalties for people and companies that do not verify performers are 18+ and have consented. Courts can also order convicted offenders to remove content and limit their Internet use. - Requires written consent from every person shown, and proof each was 18+ at the time of filming (Bill s. 172.11(1)–(3)). - Makes it a crime to make, distribute, or advertise porn for commercial purposes without that proof (s. 172.11(2)–(3)). - Sets maximum penalties of CAD $500,000 in fines and up to 2 years in jail for indictable offences; up to CAD $100,000 for summary offences (s. 172.11(4)). - Presumes corporations act for commercial purposes unless they show reasonable grounds otherwise (s. 172.11(5)). - Limits the “I thought they were 18” defence unless the maker checked government photo ID and reasonably believed it was authentic (s. 172.11(6)). - Allows courts to order removal of material and restrict Internet use after conviction (s. 172.12(1)). ## What it means for you - Households (viewers) - No age checks for viewers. The bill regulates makers, distributors, and advertisers, not viewers (s. 172.11(2)–(3)). - Some content may be removed or become unavailable if companies cannot meet the new proof rules (s. 172.12(1)(b)–(c)). - Performers and models - Must give written consent for your image to appear in a porn video or photo (s. 172.11(1)). - You may withdraw consent in writing later; distributors must confirm consent has not been withdrawn before distributing or advertising (s. 172.11(3)). The bill does not set a process or timeline for withdrawals (s. 172.13). - Makers/producers (including independent creators) - Must verify and document that each person is 18+ by checking government-issued photo ID or other prescribed documents and keep records as required by regulation (s. 172.11(6); s. 172.13). - Must obtain written consent from each person shown before making the material (s. 172.11(2)). - Face fines up to $500,000 and up to 2 years in jail (indictable) or up to $100,000 (summary) for non-compliance (s. 172.11(4)). - Aggravating factors at sentencing include if a person was under 18 or did not consent, or if the material is obscene or hate-promoting (s. 172.11(7)). - Distributors and platforms (including websites) and advertisers - Must obtain written confirmation from the maker that every person shown was 18+ at the time of production, consented, and has not withdrawn consent (s. 172.11(3)). - Must keep records as regulations may require, for a set period to be defined (s. 172.13). - Corporate entities are presumed to act for commercial purposes (s. 172.11(5)). - Courts may order removal of offending material and set Internet-use limits for convicted offenders (s. 172.12(1)). - Law enforcement and courts - Gain new offences to investigate and prosecute (s. 172.11(2)–(3)). - May impose takedown and Internet restriction orders on conviction, with penalties up to 2 years’ imprisonment for violating those orders (s. 172.12(1)–(4)). - Timing - No specific coming-into-force clause; under the default rule, provisions take effect on Royal Assent. Regulations on acceptable documents and recordkeeping may follow (s. 172.13). - Scope limits and defences - Applies to “commercial purposes.” Non-commercial creation or sharing is not covered by these new offences, though other laws still apply (s. 172.11(2)–(3)). - A limited “public good” defence exists (e.g., for acts that serve the public good and do not go beyond that), decided by courts (s. 172.11(8)–(9)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Fiscal information - No appropriation or funding in the bill. Data unavailable. - Government enforcement and court costs: Data unavailable. - Potential fine revenue from convictions: Up to $500,000 per indictable offence; up to $100,000 per summary offence. Actual amounts and frequency: Data unavailable (s. 172.11(4)). ## Proponents' View - Strengthens prevention of child sexual exploitation by requiring ID checks and written consent before production and distribution (s. 172.11(2)–(3), (6)). - Closes gaps for large platforms by requiring written confirmation from makers and presuming corporate commercial purpose, making enforcement more practical (s. 172.11(3), (5)). - Creates clear documentation trails and retention authority so investigators can verify age and consent (s. 172.13). - Provides faster removal tools through court orders against convicted offenders, helping limit ongoing harm (s. 172.12(1)(b)–(c)). - Increases penalties when minors or non-consensual acts are involved, aligning punishment with harm (s. 172.11(7)). - Preserves space for legitimate public-interest content through the “public good” defence, subject to court oversight (s. 172.11(8)–(9)). ## Opponents' View - Compliance burden and costs may be high for small creators and independent distributors, who must verify IDs, track consent status, and maintain records; the bill provides no funding (s. 172.11(2)–(3); s. 172.13). - Privacy and data security risks increase if companies store large volumes of sensitive ID and consent documents; the bill requires records but sets no explicit security standards (s. 172.13). - Tracking “withdrawn consent” across reshares and third-party uploads may be difficult, risking over-removal or legal exposure for distributors who miss updates (s. 172.11(3)). - The presumption that corporations act for commercial purposes shifts the burden onto defendants and may capture platforms with mixed content that rely on ads (s. 172.11(5)). - Possible chilling effect on lawful adult sexual expression if businesses over-comply or restrict content to avoid liability; “public good” defence is narrow and uncertain in scope (s. 172.11(8)–(9)). - Overlap with existing Criminal Code offences on child pornography and non-consensual distribution could create complexity without added resources for enforcement. Data unavailable.

Legal to Bypass Digital Locks for Repair

## Summary This bill changes the Copyright Act to let people bypass digital locks on products for the sole purpose of diagnosis, maintenance, or repair. It updates key definitions and creates a narrow exception to the ban on circumvention. The exception covers both owners and repairers working on their behalf, but it does not protect any act that infringes copyright. It does not require companies to provide parts, tools, or manuals. - Allows circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) only to diagnose, maintain, or repair a product when the protected work (usually software) is part of that product (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - Clarifies the exception also covers someone doing the circumvention for another person (e.g., a repair shop) (Bill, For greater certainty (2)). - Removes the protection if the person also commits copyright infringement (e.g., copying or distributing software) (Bill, Non-application (3)). - Does not change the separate bans on making, selling, or offering circumvention tools or services under other paragraphs of s.41.1(1); the exception applies only to paragraph 41.1(1)(a) (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - Updates definitions of “circumvent” and “technological protection measure,” but keeps TPMs in place for other uses (Bill, s.41 definitions). ## What it means for you - Households - You and your chosen repair shop can legally bypass a product’s digital lock only to find problems, maintain, or fix it, if the lock controls access to software that is part of the product (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - This does not legalize copying, sharing, or modifying software beyond what the law allows. If an infringing act occurs, the repair exception does not apply (Bill, Non-application (3)). - The bill does not require manufacturers to provide parts, tools, software keys, or manuals. Warranty and return policies are unchanged by this bill (Bill text contains no such provisions). - Independent repair shops and technicians - You may perform the circumvention for a customer when it is solely for diagnosis, maintenance, or repair (Bill, For greater certainty (2)). - The exception shields the act of circumvention under s.41.1(1)(a) only. It does not create an exception to the rules against making, selling, or offering circumvention devices or services under other parts of s.41.1(1) (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - You must avoid any act that infringes copyright during the repair process. If infringement occurs, the circumvention exception is lost (Bill, Non-application (3)). - Manufacturers and distributors - You cannot use TPM rules to stop legitimate diagnosis, maintenance, or repair that requires bypassing a lock on embedded software that forms part of the product (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - You can still enforce copyright against copying or distribution of software and other works. The bill does not require disclosure of source code, security keys, parts, or manuals (Bill text contains no such provisions). - TPMs for content that is not part of a product (e.g., streaming media access) are not covered by this exception (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations, grants, or tax/fee changes are in the bill text (Bill text). - Any enforcement or court workload impacts are not quantified. Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - It enables legal repair of modern products that rely on embedded software, by lifting the TPM ban for repair-only purposes (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - It covers both owners and third-party repairers, which can increase competition in repair services and reduce wait times (Bill, For greater certainty (2)). Quantified savings are not provided. Data unavailable. - The exception is narrow and purpose-based, which limits misuse. It applies only when the software is part of the product and does not cover access to stand‑alone content (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - Copyright protections remain in force; infringing acts are still prohibited. This helps protect software creators while allowing repair (Bill, Non-application (3)). - The bill does not compel sharing of proprietary information, which reduces risks to trade secrets while still enabling repair (Bill text contains no disclosure mandates). ## Opponents' View - Security and safety risks could rise if circumvention occurs without manufacturer oversight, even if the purpose is repair. The bill does not set technical standards for safe circumvention. Data unavailable. - The exception applies only to s.41.1(1)(a). The separate bans on making or supplying circumvention tools still apply, which could create confusion and limit practical access to needed tools (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - “Product” is not defined in the bill text provided, which may cause uncertainty or litigation about scope (e.g., which devices qualify) (Bill, Diagnosis, maintenance and repair (1)). - Manufacturers warn that circumvention could enable unauthorized modifications under the guise of repair; although infringing acts remain illegal, monitoring and enforcement may be difficult. Data unavailable. - The bill does not provide consumer education or compliance guidance, which may lead to uneven implementation and legal risk for small repairers. Data unavailable.

National Eye Care Plan and Macular Degeneration Month

## Summary This bill orders the federal Minister of Health to create a national strategy for eye care with provinces, territories, Indigenous groups, and other stakeholders. The plan may cover prevention, treatment, and vision rehabilitation (training to help people live with vision loss), plus faster review of eye‑related drugs and devices. The Minister must table the strategy within 18 months, publish it, and table a 5‑year follow‑up report on results. It also designates February as Age‑Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) Awareness Month. - A national eye care strategy must be developed and tabled within 18 months (Tabling of strategy (1)). - At least one conference with provinces, Indigenous groups, and stakeholders is required (Conference (4)). - The strategy may include training needs, better data and research, information‑sharing, and measures to enable faster federal review of eye drugs/devices (Content (2)(a)-(d)). - A report on effectiveness is due within 5 years after the strategy is tabled (Report (1)). - February becomes “Age‑Related Macular Degeneration Awareness Month” each year (Designation). ## What it means for you - Households and patients - No immediate change to public coverage, wait times, or services. The bill creates a plan, not new benefits (Content (2)). - You may see earlier access to new eye treatments if Health Canada adopts faster review processes for eye‑related drugs and devices (Content (2)(d)). This is optional, not guaranteed. - Public messaging about AMD (a disease that can cause central vision loss) may increase each February due to the awareness month (Designation). The bill does not fund campaigns. - Health professionals (optometrists, ophthalmologists, rehab providers) - The strategy may identify training and guidance needs for prevention, treatment, and vision rehabilitation (Content (2)(a)). - Expect potential new best‑practice guidance and more coordination across jurisdictions. No new licensing or practice mandates are created by this bill. - Researchers and data stewards - The strategy may promote research and improve data collection on eye disease and rehabilitation (Content (2)(b)). - No research funding is created in this bill; any support would depend on future decisions. - Drug and device manufacturers - The strategy may include measures so the Minister can rapidly examine eye‑related submissions under the Food and Drugs Act (Content (2)(d)). Standards for safety and efficacy do not change in this bill. - Any regulatory process changes would be set out later in the strategy or existing authorities. - Provinces, territories, and Indigenous governments/organizations - You must be consulted in developing the strategy and invited to at least one conference (Development (1); Conference (4)). - The strategy aims to promote information and knowledge sharing across jurisdictions (Content (2)(c)). It does not require provinces/territories to adopt specific programs. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations, new fees, or revenue changes appear in the bill text. - Required activities with likely administrative costs (no figures provided): - Develop and table a national strategy within 18 months (Tabling of strategy (1)). Data unavailable. - Hold at least one conference with provinces, Indigenous groups, and stakeholders (Conference (4)). Data unavailable. - Publish the strategy and, within 5 years, table a report on effectiveness (Publication (2); Report (1)). Data unavailable. - AMD Awareness Month is a designation only; the bill does not fund related campaigns (Designation). ## Proponents' View - A national plan will improve coordination, reduce gaps between regions, and support equitable access to prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation (Development (1); Content (2)(c)). - Identifying training needs can raise quality of care and support for people living with vision loss (Content (2)(a)). - Better research and data will help target interventions and track outcomes over time (Content (2)(b)). - Enabling rapid examination of eye‑related drugs and devices could shorten time to patient access for new therapies (Content (2)(d)). - Regular reporting creates accountability for progress and keeps Parliament informed about results (Tabling of strategy (1); Report (1)). - AMD Awareness Month can boost public awareness and earlier detection, which proponents argue may prevent severe vision loss (Designation). ## Opponents' View - The bill uses “may include” language and sets no binding program changes or funding, so it could yield plans and reports without concrete service improvements (Content (2)). - Health care delivery is provincial. A federal strategy may duplicate existing provincial frameworks or have limited effect without provincial adoption (Development (1)). - “Rapid examination” of eye‑related submissions could strain regulator capacity or shift priority away from other conditions without added resources (Content (2)(d)). - The 18‑month timeline for the strategy and a 5‑year effectiveness report may delay any practical benefits (Tabling of strategy (1); Report (1)). - With no appropriations in the bill, any conferences, data work, or regulatory process changes depend on future budgets or internal reallocations, creating implementation risk (No explicit appropriations in bill text).

Allow Bypassing Digital Locks for Interoperability

## Summary This bill changes the Copyright Act to let people bypass a digital lock (a “technological protection measure,” or TPM) on a computer program they lawfully obtained so they can make it work with other programs, devices, or parts. It also allows sharing the information needed for interoperability, but only for that purpose. The bill does not allow copyright infringement or breaking other laws. - Lets a person circumvent a TPM on a lawfully obtained program to get information for interoperability (Bill s. 41.12(1)(a)). - Lets a person circumvent a TPM to actually make the program or the device it is embedded in interoperate with other programs, devices, or components (Bill s. 41.12(1)(b)). - Allows sharing of interoperability information with another person, limited to that purpose (Bill s. 41.12(4), (6)). - Limits the use of tools and information to interoperability only (Bill s. 41.12(5)–(6)). - Removes the exception if the act involves copyright infringement or breaks other federal or provincial laws (Bill s. 41.12(7)–(9)). ## What it means for you - Households and individuals - You may legally bypass a TPM on software you lawfully obtained to make it work with other software, devices, or parts, including when the software is inside a device you own (Bill s. 41.12(1)). - You can receive interoperability information from someone else, and use it only to make your program or device interoperate with other programs, devices, or components (Bill s. 41.12(4), (6)). - You do not have legal cover if your actions also infringe copyright or break another law (Bill s. 41.12(7), (9)). - Repair technicians and small shops - You can develop and use methods, tools, or information to enable interoperability, but only for that purpose (Bill s. 41.12(3)–(6); purpose limits in (5)–(6)). - Clients may give or receive interoperability information, and you may use it to help them, but only within the interoperability purpose and without infringing copyright or other laws (Bill s. 41.12(4), (6)–(9)). - Software and device makers - Customers and third parties gain clearer legal rights to bypass TPMs for interoperability of programs and devices, including embedded software (Bill s. 41.12(1)). - You retain copyright enforcement; the exception does not apply where interoperability steps also infringe copyright (Bill s. 41.12(7)–(8)). - Tools and information shared for interoperability must be used only for that purpose; broader use remains restricted (Bill s. 41.12(5)–(6)). - Farmers, equipment owners, and other users of embedded software - If you lawfully obtained the software in your device, you may bypass TPMs to make that device or its software interoperate with other programs, devices, or parts, within the law’s limits (Bill s. 41.12(1), (7)–(9)). - Public entities and institutions - Staff and vendors may rely on the interoperability exception to integrate systems, so long as they stay within the purpose limits and do not infringe copyright or other statutes (Bill s. 41.12(1), (5)–(9)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill contains no appropriations, taxes, or fees in its text (Bill text). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - Any enforcement or administrative costs are not specified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves consumer choice and competition by allowing users and developers to make programs and devices work together, reducing lock‑in to a single provider (Bill s. 41.12(1), (4)). - Supports repair and maintenance by permitting lawful circumvention of TPMs on embedded software solely to achieve interoperability, including with third‑party parts or tools (Bill s. 41.12(1)(b), (5)–(6)). - Preserves copyright through guardrails: the exception vanishes if any step infringes copyright, adding a clear boundary between interoperability and piracy (Bill s. 41.12(7)–(8)). - Enables knowledge sharing for interoperability while keeping it purpose‑bound, allowing practical collaboration without broad distribution of circumvention methods (Bill s. 41.12(4)–(6)). - Extends existing interoperability rights to devices with embedded software, reflecting modern, connected products across many sectors (Bill s. 41.12(1)(a)–(b)). ## Opponents' View - Risk of misuse: expanding lawful TPM circumvention and information sharing could be abused beyond interoperability, and intent may be hard to police despite purpose limits (Bill s. 41.12(5)–(6)). - Security and safety concerns: enabling third‑party interactions with embedded software may increase risks if changes are not properly vetted; the bill does not set technical standards or certifications. Data unavailable. - Legal uncertainty: terms like “lawfully obtained” and the scope of “interoperable” may be contested, creating compliance and litigation risk until clarified by guidance or courts. Data unavailable. - Enforcement complexity: determining when interoperability efforts cross into copyright infringement or breach other laws may burden rights holders and users, even with the non‑application clauses (Bill s. 41.12(7)–(9)).

Travel Tax Break for Construction Workers

## Summary This bill changes the federal Income Tax Act to let certain construction workers deduct their travel costs from taxable income. It covers tradespersons and indentured apprentices who travel to job sites at least 120 km from their usual home. It applies to the 2022 tax year and onward (Bill Section 1, para 8(1)(q.1); Section 2). - Allows a new deduction for amounts spent on travel “to and from” distant construction job sites (Bill Section 1, para 8(1)(q.1)). - Eligible only if the worker is a duly qualified tradesperson or an indentured apprentice in construction (Bill Section 1). - Distance threshold: job site must be 120 km or more from the worker’s ordinary residence (usual home) (Bill Section 1). - No explicit dollar cap; no double-claim if an allowance was received tax‑free or if claimed elsewhere (Bill Section 1). - Applies to 2022 and later tax years (retroactive to 2022) (Bill Section 2). ## What it means for you - Households (trades workers and apprentices) - You may deduct what you paid for travel to and from a construction job site 120 km or more from your home, if your employment contract required you to pay those costs and you did not get a non-taxable allowance for them (Bill Section 1). - The deduction lowers your taxable income. The tax savings depend on your tax bracket. If you owe little or no income tax, the benefit is small because this is a deduction, not a refundable credit (Bill Section 1). - Keep records. You will need proof of your travel spending and that your contract required you to cover it. The bill does not create a special form; normal audit rules apply (Bill Section 1). - You cannot also claim these same travel costs under any other deduction or credit (no double-claim) (Bill Section 1). - Workers comparing with the existing federal Labour Mobility Deduction for Tradespeople (LMDT) - The LMDT (in place since 2022) lets eligible construction workers deduct certain travel, temporary lodging, and meal costs for jobs 150 km or more from home, up to $4,000/year (Budget 2022; CRA guidance on LMDT). - This bill’s deduction has a shorter distance threshold (120 km) and no stated dollar cap, but it covers only travel “to and from” the site, not lodging or meals (Bill Section 1; Budget 2022). - You cannot claim the same expense under both. You would need to choose which deduction fits your situation (Bill Section 1(iii); Budget 2022). - Businesses (employers in construction) - No new filings or taxes for employers. However, workers can only claim if their contract requires them to pay their own travel costs and they did not receive a non-taxable allowance for those costs (Bill Section 1). - Tax preparers and advisors - Check three tests: worker status (duly qualified tradesperson or indentured apprentice in construction), distance (≥120 km), and contract requirement to self-fund travel with no non-taxable allowance received (Bill Section 1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriation in the bill; it creates a new tax deduction that would reduce federal income tax revenue (Bill Section 1). - No official fiscal note identified for this specific bill. Data unavailable. - Key design features that affect cost: - No explicit annual dollar cap on the deduction (Bill Section 1). - Eligibility limited to construction tradespersons and indentured apprentices, and only for travel to and from distant job sites (Bill Section 1). - Applies starting in the 2022 tax year (retroactive) (Bill Section 2). ## Proponents' View - Lowers out-of-pocket costs for construction workers who must travel far for work by letting them deduct required travel expenses from income (Bill Section 1). - Broader reach than the existing LMDT on distance: 120 km threshold vs. 150 km, which could make more workers eligible in medium-distance scenarios (Bill Section 1; Budget 2022). - Simple rule set: three clear conditions (contract requires payment, no non-taxable allowance, no double-claim) and no dollar cap, which avoids small annual limits (Bill Section 1). - Retroactive start in 2022 provides immediate relief for past eligible travel (Bill Section 2). ## Opponents' View - Ambiguity risk: “duly qualified tradesperson,” “indentured apprentice,” and “construction activity” are not defined in the bill, which could lead to disputes and uneven administration (Bill Section 1). - Fiscal uncertainty: no explicit cap means potentially large, uneven deductions; total revenue loss cannot be forecast without a limit or fiscal estimate. Data unavailable (Bill Section 1). - Overlap and complexity with the existing LMDT may confuse filers and require extra CRA enforcement to prevent double-claims, since each program covers different costs and thresholds (Bill Section 1(iii); Budget 2022). - Unequal benefit distribution: deductions give larger dollar tax savings to higher‑bracket taxpayers, while lower‑income workers may see little benefit if they owe little tax (Bill Section 1). - Line-drawing effects: workers traveling 100–119 km receive no benefit under this bill even if their costs are high, while those at 120+ km qualify (Bill Section 1).

New watchdog to oversee RCMP and CBSA

## Summary Bill C-20 creates a new independent body, the Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC), to replace the RCMP’s Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and to extend independent oversight to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for the first time. It sets out how the PCRC will receive, investigate, and review public complaints about RCMP and CBSA conduct and service, and how it will review specified activities of both agencies. It also adds rules for “serious incidents” involving CBSA personnel and updates related federal laws. - Creates the PCRC with powers to investigate complaints and review RCMP and CBSA activities; publishes service standards and annual reports, including disaggregated race-based data (Part 1; Annual report). - Allows anyone to file complaints within 2 years (extensions possible), with a right to refer unsatisfactory outcomes to the PCRC for review within 60 days (Part 2 — Complaints; Referral). - Lets the PCRC Chair recommend disciplinary processes or measures; requires RCMP/CBSA leaders to respond and inform the Minister if they decline (Part 2 — Disciplinary recommendations). - Requires CBSA to notify police and the PCRC about alleged serious incidents; allows a PCRC-appointed observer to assess impartiality (CBSA Act s.14.1–14.9). - Carves out national security matters for referral to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) to avoid overlap (Part 1 — National security; Part 2 s.52(8); Part 4 — Cooperation). - Comes into force on a date set by Order in Council (Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households and travelers - You can file a complaint about RCMP or CBSA conduct or service level. Complaints must be within 2 years, but the PCRC can extend the deadline (Part 2 — Complaints). - If you are not satisfied with RCMP/CBSA’s handling, you can ask the PCRC to review it within 60 days. The PCRC may investigate further or hold a hearing (Part 2 — Referral; Review; Hearings). - The PCRC, RCMP, and CBSA must publish service standards for timelines and provide status updates to complainants (Part 1 — Service standards; Part 2 — Updates). - The PCRC will publish annual summaries and trend data, including disaggregated demographic and race-based data that is anonymized (Part 1 — Annual report). - People detained by CBSA - You must be told, as soon as feasible, about your right to make a complaint to the PCRC and how to do it (Part 4 — Right to be informed). - Where CBSA uses provincial facilities to detain people, the federal government should ensure the province has an independent body to receive detention-condition complaints; temporary exceptions are allowed in urgent cases (CBSA Act s.13(3)–(4)). - CBSA must share with the PCRC information about detention-related complaints and monitoring reports it receives (CBSA Act s.13(5)–(6)). - RCMP and CBSA employees - Your conduct may be investigated by your agency or by the PCRC. Union representatives must be allowed to make representations (Part 2 — Investigations; Representations). - The PCRC Chair can recommend starting a disciplinary process, or recommend a disciplinary measure if there are multiple substantiated serious cases. The Commissioner/President must inform the Minister if they choose not to act (Part 2 — Disciplinary recommendations). - There are new offences for obstruction, harassment, and destroying documents related to a complaint (fines up to $5,000 and/or up to 6 months in jail; up to 5 years for serious offences) (Part 4 — Offences). - Local and provincial governments - Provinces that contract RCMP policing will receive province-specific PCRC reports on complaint numbers, types, dispositions, and trends (Part 1 — Annual report — provinces). - Provincial ministers can ask the federal Minister to have the PCRC review specified RCMP activities in their province (Part 1 — Review for province). - For CBSA detention agreements, provinces are expected to have an independent detention-complaints body (CBSA Act s.13(3)). - Participants in cross‑border law enforcement operations - Complaints and reviews related to “integrated cross-border operations” fall under the PCRC with tailored rules. The Central Authority is the point of contact, and joint investigations with other jurisdictions are allowed (Part 3 — Application; Complaints; Joint investigations). - Witnesses and service users - The PCRC can compel witness attendance and documents, similar to a superior court, with protections for compelled testimony (Part 2 — Commission’s powers). - Hearings are public unless privacy, law enforcement, or national security risks require in camera sessions (Part 2 — Hearings). - Timing - These changes take effect on a date set by Cabinet through an Order in Council (Coming into Force). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill includes a Royal Recommendation authorizing public spending to establish and operate the PCRC, but it does not state dollar amounts (Recommendation; Short Title). - Explicit appropriations are not listed in the bill. Operating costs will include PCRC members and staff, regional offices, technical experts, and travel expenses per Treasury Board rules (Part 1 — Establishment; Head office; Staff; Technical assistance). - Agencies may incur compliance and reporting costs to meet service standards, information-sharing, and annual reporting duties (Part 1 — Service standards; Information provisions; Annual reports). - Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Extends independent oversight to CBSA for the first time, closing a gap in accountability for border conduct and detention conditions (Part 1 — Powers; CBSA Act s.13(3)–(6); s.14.1–14.9). - Sets service standards and requires regular updates to complainants, which should reduce delays and improve transparency (Part 1 — Service standards; Part 2 — Updates). - Strengthens investigative tools: the PCRC can compel witnesses and documents, conduct hearings, and access relevant information, including some privileged information in defined cases (Part 2 — Commission’s powers; Part 1 — Information provisions). - Adds deterrence through new offences for harassment, obstruction, or document destruction during complaint processes (fines up to $5,000; jail up to 6 months; up to 5 years for serious offences) (Part 4 — Offences). - Increases transparency through annual public reports, province-specific reports, and anonymized race-based data to identify trends and disparities (Part 1 — Annual reports). - Provides special oversight of CBSA serious incidents via mandatory notification, investigations, and PCRC-appointed observers to assess impartiality (CBSA Act s.14.2–14.7). ## Opponents' View - Recommendations are not binding. The RCMP Commissioner or CBSA President can decline to act on PCRC findings and only need to give reasons to the PCRC and the Minister, which may limit real consequences (Part 2 — Commissioner’s/President’s response; Final report). - Significant carve-outs: the PCRC cannot review national security activities and must refer them to NSIRA; extensive privileges and information-protection rules may restrict access to key evidence (Part 1 — National security; Information provisions; Part 2 s.52(8)). - CBSA “serious incident” investigations are led by CBSA itself with an observer, not by an external investigative body, raising concerns about independence (CBSA Act s.14.3–14.7). - Timelines depend on future service standards; no statutory deadlines in the bill, so delays and backlogs are possible if resources are tight (Part 1 — Service standards). - New reporting of disaggregated demographic and race-based data requires strong safeguards to prevent re-identification; the bill requires anonymization but implementation details depend on regulations and practice (Part 1 — Annual report). - Implementation and ongoing operating costs are not detailed in the bill; without clear funding and staffing levels, the Commission may struggle to meet expectations (Recommendation; Data unavailable).

Stronger Federal Whistleblower Protections

## Summary This bill updates Canada’s Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) to strengthen whistleblower protections in the federal public sector. It broadens who is covered, expands what counts as wrongdoing, adds supports for those who disclose, and extends the time to file reprisal complaints. It also lets complainants apply directly to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and increases reporting and oversight. A related change guides referrals to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The law takes effect one year after Royal Assent (Coming-into-force). - Expands wrongdoing to include mismanagement, abuse of authority, political interference, and foreign interference (Bill, PSDPA s.8 as amended). - Extends reprisal complaint window to 1 year and lets a representative file on the person’s behalf (Bill, PSDPA s.19.1(1)–(2)). - Allows disclosures to more people inside a department, and public disclosures in urgent risk situations (Bill, PSDPA s.12; s.16). - Requires non-financial support and stronger identity protection for those involved in disclosures (Bill, PSDPA s.11(1)). - Lets complainants apply directly to the Tribunal for remedies; adds stronger penalties for retaliation (Bill, new s.21.01; PSDPA ss.42.1–42.3). - Increases public reporting and mandates an annual survey of whistleblowers’ experiences (Bill, PSDPA s.38 as amended). ## What it means for you - Households (federal public servants and former public servants) - You can disclose suspected wrongdoing to your supervisor, someone higher up your chain, your senior officer, or another designated person in your organization (Bill, PSDPA s.12). - You have 1 year to file a reprisal complaint after you knew or ought to have known about it; a designated representative can file for you (Bill, PSDPA s.19.1(1)–(2)). - You may disclose to the public if there is not enough time to use internal channels and there is an imminent risk to life, health, safety, or the environment (Bill, PSDPA s.16(1)). - You can request non-financial support (information on resources and recourse) and identity protection, subject to fairness and other laws (Bill, PSDPA s.11(1)(a), (a.1)). - You gain protection from a wider range of reprisals, including threats, discrimination, demotion, dismissal, and measures causing emotional distress or psychological injury (Bill, PSDPA s.2(1) “reprisal” and “listed measure”). - You may apply directly to the Tribunal for a decision and remedies within 60 days after being notified under s.20.6 (Bill, new PSDPA s.21.01(1)–(2)). - Workers (outside government) - Your employer cannot take measures against you just because you provided, on a reasonable belief, information about alleged federal public sector wrongdoing to the Integrity Commissioner (or to the Auditor General if it concerns the Commissioner’s office) (Bill, PSDPA s.42.1). - Businesses (federal contractors and vendors) - Federal officials cannot end your contract, withhold payment, or penalize you in contract decisions because you or your employees gave, on a reasonable belief, information about alleged public sector wrongdoing to the Integrity Commissioner (or to the Auditor General if it concerns that office) (Bill, PSDPA s.42.2(1)–(2)). - Violations carry penalties up to $200,000 and/or up to 2 years’ imprisonment on indictment, or up to $100,000 and/or up to 6 months on summary conviction (Bill, PSDPA s.42.3). - Federal departments and agencies (chief executives, senior officers, managers) - You must designate senior officers and at least one additional person to receive disclosures; the designee can be outside your organization (Bill, PSDPA s.10(2.1), (3)). - You must protect identities of persons involved in disclosures, subject to fairness and other Acts, and provide requested non-financial support (Bill, PSDPA s.11(1)(a), (a.1)). - If a disclosure falls under the Conflict of Interest Act, a senior officer must refuse it and refer the matter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, with reasons given to the discloser (Bill, new PSDPA s.12.1(1)–(2); Conflict of Interest Act s.68 as amended). - Expect assessments of internal disclosure procedures by the Integrity Commissioner and possible reviews of how you receive and handle disclosures (Bill, PSDPA s.22(a.1)). - You must support expanded annual reporting: numbers and outcomes of disclosures and investigations, broken down by department and region, and results of a new annual survey (Bill, PSDPA s.38(2), (2.01), (2.1)). - Service users and the public - The Integrity Commissioner will publish more detailed annual reports and survey findings on whether whistleblowers felt protected and supported (Bill, PSDPA s.38(2), (2.01)). - Timing - All changes take effect one year after Royal Assent (Bill, Coming-into-force). Specific Royal Assent date: Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified for this bill. Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations in the bill text. Data unavailable. - The bill creates new administrative duties (e.g., additional designated recipients, identity protection processes, annual survey, expanded reporting, internal procedure assessments) that may require resources within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Treasury Board Secretariat, and departments (Bill, PSDPA ss.10–12, 11, 22(a.1), 38). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Stronger whistleblower protections: broader definition of reprisal, including acts causing emotional distress and protections for associates, witnesses, and those mistaken for whistleblowers (Bill, PSDPA s.2(1)). - More time and access to justice: 1-year window to file reprisal complaints and a new right for complainants to apply directly to the Tribunal for determinations and remedies (Bill, PSDPA s.19.1(2); new s.21.01). - More paths to disclose safely: disclosures allowed to supervisors, higher-ups, senior officers, and designated persons; public disclosure allowed in urgent risk situations (Bill, PSDPA s.12; s.16(1)). - Wider scope of wrongdoing: adds mismanagement, abuse of authority, political interference, and foreign interference, aligning the Act with current risks (Bill, PSDPA s.8(b.1), (c), (c.1), (c.2)). - Better support and confidentiality: duty to provide non-financial support and protect identities, subject to fairness and other laws (Bill, PSDPA s.11(1)(a), (a.1)). - Stronger deterrents and third-party protections: bans retaliation by any employer and retaliation via federal contracting; sets penalties up to $200,000 and/or imprisonment (Bill, PSDPA ss.42.1–42.3). ## Opponents' View - Ambiguity risk: terms like “abuse of authority,” “political interference,” and “foreign interference” will be defined by regulation later, which may create uncertainty and uneven application (Bill, PSDPA s.8(b.1), (c.1), (c.2)). - Caseload and subjectivity: expanded “reprisal” and “listed measures” (including psychological injury and emotional distress) could increase complaint volume and involve subjective assessments, straining investigative capacity (Bill, PSDPA s.2(1)). - Procedural complexity: allowing complainants to apply directly to the Tribunal adds a new litigation path and deadlines that may complicate resolution and raise legal costs (Bill, new PSDPA s.21.01(1)–(2)). - Due process concern: a Commissioner’s application to the Tribunal counts as proof of reprisal unless there is evidence to the contrary, which some may view as tilting the process against alleged reprisers (Bill, new provision after PSDPA s.21.3). - Oversight limits in security matters: required cessation of parts of investigations involving the Canadian Forces, CSIS, or CSE could weaken oversight in national security areas (Bill, PSDPA s.34). - Unfunded mandates: added duties (annual survey, detailed reporting, more designations, internal assessments) may increase administrative costs without dedicated funding in the bill (Bill, PSDPA ss.10–12, 22(a.1), 38). Data unavailable.

National Brain Injury Strategy and Guidelines

## Summary - This bill directs the federal Minister of Health to create a national strategy on brain injuries. It focuses on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, recovery, data, and public awareness (s. 2(1)-(2)). - The strategy must include national guidelines, better data collection, online resources, a task force with people who have lived experience, and support for brain injury associations (s. 2(2)(c)-(k)). - The Minister must table the strategy in Parliament within 18 months after the Act comes into force and publish it online within 10 days (Reports to Parliament, Tabling of strategy (1)-(2)). - The Minister must evaluate the strategy within five years of tabling and report back to Parliament (Report (1)-(2)). - Key practical effects: - Creates national guidelines on prevention, diagnosis, and management of brain injuries (s. 2(2)(e)). - Promotes public awareness and rights education for people living with brain injury (s. 2(2)(f)). - Improves research and data on brain injuries in Canada (s. 2(2)(c)). - Establishes a task force including people with brain injuries and Indigenous groups (s. 2(2)(k)). - Enables federal collaboration and financial support for brain injury associations and service providers (s. 2(2)(g)). ## What it means for you - Households and people living with brain injury - Access to national guidelines and plain-language online resources once the strategy is published within 18 months of the Act coming into force (s. 2(2)(e), (j); Reports to Parliament). - Potentially more coordinated supports for mental health and addiction needs linked to brain injury; details depend on the strategy and future funding (s. 2(2)(g), (h), (i)). - No new entitlement to benefits or services is created in the bill; service changes, if any, will come through later programs or agreements (entire Act). - Caregivers and families - Inclusion in the task force and in awareness and education efforts; may see more caregiver-focused resources (s. 2(2)(f), (k)). - Improved information on navigating services through federal online resources (s. 2(2)(j)). - Health care and allied professionals - Identification of training and guidance needs; possible access to national standards of care and best practices (s. 2(2)(b), (e)). - Improved data to inform practice; specifics will depend on how data collection is designed (s. 2(2)(c)). - Schools, sports organizations, and workplaces - Encouraged to consult mental health professionals to support people with brain injuries; this is not a mandate but part of the strategy’s measures (s. 2(2)(h)). - May see national guidelines that influence concussion and return-to-learn/play/work policies (s. 2(2)(e)). - Brain injury associations and service providers - Opportunity for collaboration and potential federal financial support to enhance integrated mental health resources; amounts and programs are not specified (s. 2(2)(g)). - Participation in the task force and knowledge-sharing networks (s. 2(2)(d), (k)). - Provinces, territories, and Indigenous groups - Formal consultation role in developing and evaluating the strategy (s. 2(1); Report (1)). - National guidelines are non-binding; adoption will depend on provincial/territorial decisions (s. 2(2)(e)). - Researchers and data users - Strategy will promote research and improve data collection on incidence, treatment, rehabilitation, and recovery (s. 2(2)(c)). - Centralized online hub for current facts and best practices (s. 2(2)(j)). - Local governments and justice/housing partners - Strategy aims to identify and develop solutions for challenges linked to brain injury, including homelessness and criminality, such as intimate partner violence; participation would be through collaboration with stakeholders (s. 2(2)(i)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No dollar amounts or appropriations are specified in the bill (entire Act). - Potential federal spending areas implied by the strategy, with amounts and timing not specified: - Financial support to brain injury associations and service providers (s. 2(2)(g)). - Establishing and operating a task force (s. 2(2)(k)). - Developing and publishing national guidelines and online resources (s. 2(2)(e), (j)). - Promoting research and improving data collection (s. 2(2)(c)). - Awareness and education activities (s. 2(2)(f)). - Administrative costs for preparing the strategy within 18 months, publishing it, and conducting the five-year evaluation are not estimated (Reports to Parliament; Report (1)-(2)). ## Proponents' View - A coordinated, national approach will reduce duplication and help align standards of care and prevention across Canada, including in rural and Indigenous communities (s. 2(1), 2(2)(e)). - National guidelines and training supports can improve diagnosis and management, which may lower complications and long-term disability (s. 2(2)(b), (e)). - Better data and research will fill gaps on incidence, treatment outcomes, and recovery, enabling smarter policy and resource allocation (s. 2(2)(c)). - Public awareness and rights education can reduce stigma and improve early care-seeking, especially after sports, workplace, or intimate partner violence-related injuries (s. 2(2)(f), (i)). - The task force, including people with lived experience and Indigenous groups, will make the strategy practical and inclusive (s. 2(2)(k)). - Time-bound reporting (18 months to table; five-year evaluation) adds accountability and a path to course-correct if results are weak (Reports to Parliament; Report (1)-(2)). ## Opponents' View - The bill sets broad duties but includes no funding levels or cost estimates; this risks an unfunded or underfunded strategy (entire Act; s. 2(2)(g)). - Health care is mainly a provincial/territorial responsibility; national guidelines may duplicate or conflict with existing provincial protocols (s. 2(1), 2(2)(e)). - Many provisions use “promote,” “encourage,” and “foster,” which may lead to limited on-the-ground change if participation is voluntary (s. 2(2)(a)-(h)). - Creating a task force and multiple deliverables could add administrative layers without guaranteed service improvements or measurable targets (s. 2(2)(k); Reports to Parliament). - The bill calls for expanded data collection but does not address data governance, interoperability, or privacy safeguards, which could slow implementation (s. 2(2)(c)). - New consultation expectations for schools, sports groups, and workplaces could add workload without clear funding or guidance on execution (s. 2(2)(h)).

National Flood and Drought Forecast Plan

## Summary This bill orders the federal government to create a national strategy for forecasting floods and droughts. The Minister of the Environment must lead the work, consult many partners, and table the strategy in Parliament within two years of the law taking effect (Bill Section 3; Section 4(1)). A follow-up report on how well the strategy works is due five years after the strategy is tabled (Bill Section 5(1)). - Creates a plan to coordinate flood and drought forecasting across Canada (Bill Section 3(1), 3(3)(c)). - Requires broad consultations with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, universities, civil society, industry, and insurers (Bill Section 3(2)). - Calls for assessments of needs, benefits, and new technologies, plus flood-risk modelling for properties and infrastructure (Bill Section 3(3)(a)-(b)). - Directs preparation of a proposal for a cooperative national hydrological and water-resources forecasting service (Bill Section 3(3)(d)). - Requires public release of the strategy and the later effectiveness report within 10 days of tabling (Bill Section 4(2); Section 5(2)). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate change to services. The bill creates a strategy, not a new program. Any new maps or alerts would come later, if the government funds and implements the strategy’s proposals (Bill Section 3(3)(d)). - The strategy must assess modelling that identifies properties at flood risk, which could lead to better local risk information in the future (Bill Section 3(3)(b)). - Farmers and water‑dependent industries - Potential for improved short- and long-term drought and flood forecasts, if the proposed national system is later created and funded (Bill Section 3(3)(c)-(d)). - Input opportunities during consultations for sector-specific forecasting needs (Bill Section 3(2)). - Indigenous communities - Guaranteed role in consultations on the strategy’s design and priorities (Bill Section 3(2)). - Possible access to better forecasting and flood‑plain information later, depending on future implementation (Bill Section 3(3)(c)). - Municipalities and provinces - Formal venue to coordinate with the federal government and each other on forecasting and data standards (Bill Section 3(1)-(2)). - The strategy must assess how to delineate current and future flood‑plains, which could inform land-use planning if adopted (Bill Section 3(3)(c)). - Insurance sector - Participation in consultations. Possible access later to nationally consistent risk data and models, aiding pricing and coverage decisions (Bill Section 3(2)-(3)). - Researchers and universities - Expect engagement on model development and integration, as named stakeholders (Bill Section 3(2)). - The strategy will evaluate applying novel technologies in forecasting (Bill Section 3(3)(a)). - Timeline and transparency - Strategy due within two years of the Act coming into force; public online within 10 days of tabling (Bill Section 4(1)-(2)). - Effectiveness report due five years after the strategy is tabled; also published within 10 days (Bill Section 5(1)-(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations or new spending authorities are in the bill text (entire bill). - The bill mandates developing and publishing a strategy and an effectiveness report. Administrative costs are not stated. Data unavailable. - Any future costs to build or run a national forecasting service would depend on later government decisions and funding not contained in this bill (Bill Section 3(3)(d)). ## Proponents' View - National coordination can reduce harm from floods and droughts by improving forecasts and warnings, which are currently fragmented across provinces (Preamble; Bill Section 3(1), 3(3)(c)). - A strategy that assesses new investments and technologies could modernize forecasting using advanced models and computing, improving accuracy and lead time (Preamble; Bill Section 3(3)(a)). - Property- and infrastructure‑level risk modelling can support better land-use planning, mitigation, and insurance pricing (Bill Section 3(3)(b)). - A proposal for a cooperative national hydrological forecasting service gives a concrete next step rather than a vague plan (Bill Section 3(3)(d)). - Broad consultations ensure the strategy reflects needs of provinces, municipalities, Indigenous communities, farmers, and insurers (Bill Section 3(2)). ## Opponents' View - The bill creates a planning process but does not create services; benefits depend on future funding and agreements that are not guaranteed (Bill Section 3(3)(d); Section 4–5). - Possible duplication with existing provincial systems; unclear how federal coordination would align with provincial jurisdiction over water management (Bill Section 3(1)-(2)). - Costs are unspecified. Without a fiscal plan, the scope of proposed national systems and their long‑term operating costs are uncertain. Data unavailable. - Timelines may delay tangible improvements; households and farmers may not see changes until after the two‑year strategy window and subsequent implementation (Bill Section 4(1)). - The Act sets deadlines but no enforcement or penalties for missed milestones, which could limit accountability (Bill Section 4–5).

Canada to Create National Pandemic Plan

## Summary This bill requires the federal Minister of Health to create, publish, and regularly update a national plan to prevent and prepare for future pandemics. It also amends the Department of Health Act to require a national coordinator at the Public Health Agency of Canada to lead this work. The plan must use a “One Health” approach (a joint human–animal–environment lens) and include input from several federal ministers, provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities. The first plan is due within two years of the Act coming into force, with updates at least every three years (Bill 3(4), 4(1)). - Sets deadlines to table a public plan within two years and update it at least every three years (Bill 3(4), 4(1)-(3)). - Requires a coordinator at the Public Health Agency of Canada to oversee activities (Department of Health Act amendment). - Mandates collaboration with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities on data sharing, training, and preparedness (Bill 3(2)(c)-(d)). - Calls for linked disease surveillance systems, stockpile planning, and surge staffing strategies (Bill 3(2)(g), 3(2)(i)(iii)-(iv), 3(2)(j)). - Directs analysis of domestic manufacturing capacity for vaccines, tests, and PPE, and actions to fill gaps (Bill 3(2)(k)(i)). - Requires consideration of measures on activities tied to pandemic risk (e.g., industrial animal agriculture, live animal markets, wildlife trade, land-use change) within the plan (Bill 3(2)(l), 3(2)(m)). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate changes to daily life. The bill is about planning and reporting, not new rules or benefits. - Future outbreaks may see clearer risk communication and more coordinated responses if measures from the plan are later funded and implemented (Bill 3(2)(i)(v)). - Workers - Essential workers: The plan must address working conditions during outbreaks as part of preparedness strategies (Bill 3(2)(i)(ii)). - Health workers: The plan must “provide for” training to handle sudden surges in patients (Bill 3(2)(j)). This is a planning requirement; training occurs only if funded later. - Businesses - Manufacturers of vaccines, tests, and PPE: The plan must list domestic capacity and steps to address supply gaps (Bill 3(2)(k)(i)). - Communications and app providers: The plan must cover capacity for digital tools, including contact tracing apps (Bill 3(2)(k)(ii)). - Agriculture and wildlife trade sectors: The plan must consider measures to regulate or phase out activities that increase pandemic risk, including parts of industrial animal agriculture, live animal markets, and trade in high-risk species (Bill 3(2)(l)(ii)-(iv), 3(2)(m)(ii)). The bill itself does not enact these measures. - Local and Indigenous governments - Must be engaged in developing the plan, including on data collection and sharing (Bill 3(2)(c)). - May be offered training and support for public health capacity if such measures are later approved and funded (Bill 3(2)(d), 3(2)(h)). - Travelers and border users - The plan must assess how pathogens could enter Canada and summarize border measures that would be used to reduce risk (Bill 3(2)(p)). This is planning only; it does not change current border rules. - Timing - First plan due within two years after the Act comes into force; updates at least every three years (Bill 3(4), 4(1)). - The coordinator position takes effect through the Department of Health Act amendment once the Act is in force (Department of Health Act amendment). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill contains no appropriation or new revenue (no direct spending authority in the text). - Administrative costs for appointing a coordinator, preparing the plan, consultations, tabling, and web publication: Data unavailable. - Potential program costs (if later approved) for training, capacity building, surveillance system interlinking, stockpile management, and manufacturing or communications initiatives are not estimated in the bill (Bill 3(2)(d), 3(2)(g)-(j), 3(2)(k)). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Creates a clear, public, and recurring plan with deadlines, improving accountability and learning over time (Bill 3(4)-(5), 4(1)-(3)). - Uses a One Health approach to address risks at the human–animal–environment interface, aligning with international metrics and best science (Bill 3(3)(a)-(c)). - Strengthens core capacities by planning linked surveillance, surge staffing, stockpiles, and risk communication (Bill 3(2)(g), 3(2)(i)(iii)-(v), 3(2)(j)). - Addresses supply vulnerabilities by mapping domestic manufacturing capacity for vaccines, tests, and PPE and steps to close gaps (Bill 3(2)(k)(i)). - Improves coordination across governments and with Indigenous communities, which can reduce confusion during emergencies (Bill 3(2)(c)-(d)). - Integrates international cooperation, border risk analysis, and global health equity measures to reduce importation and spread of disease (Bill 3(2)(n)-(p)). ## Opponents' View - The plan’s scope touches areas of provincial and Indigenous jurisdiction (health service delivery, land use, data sharing), risking overlap or conflict and adding administrative burden (Bill 3(2)(c), 3(2)(m)). - The plan must consider regulatory or phase‑out measures for certain sectors (industrial animal agriculture, live animal markets, high‑risk species), but the bill provides no impact analysis or costs, creating uncertainty for businesses (Bill 3(2)(l)(ii)-(iv), 3(2)(m)(ii)). - Building interlinked surveillance systems and digital contact tracing capacity may raise privacy and cybersecurity concerns; the bill does not set privacy safeguards or data standards (Bill 3(2)(g), 3(2)(k)(ii)). - No funding details. The bill mandates planning deliverables without resources attached, which could lead to unfunded expectations or delays (no appropriation in bill text). - Tight timelines and broad consultation requirements may strain departments and partners, risking a high‑level plan with limited operational detail within the two‑year window (Bill 3(4)).

Tougher Bail, New Tools for Domestic Violence

## Summary Bill S-205 changes Canada’s Criminal Code to tighten bail and expand “peace bond” tools in domestic violence cases. It adds a new recognizance (a court order to keep the peace with conditions, even without a conviction) specific to domestic violence fears and updates rules for monitoring and privacy. It also requires a simple victim-notification check when release orders are made and adjusts youth court rules. The law takes effect 180 days after Royal Assent. - Stricter bail rule for people charged with intimate partner violence who have a past conviction or discharge for violence against any intimate partner (s.515(6)(b.1)). - Judges must confirm victims were told they can ask for a copy of a release order (s.515(14.1)). - New domestic-violence recognizance (s.810.03) allows court-ordered conditions for up to 12 months, or up to 2 years if there is a prior violent conviction. - Possible conditions include electronic monitoring, no-contact, geographic limits, firearms bans, treatment, and drug/alcohol abstention with testing (s.810.03(6)–(8)). - Privacy limits and destruction rules for bodily samples collected to enforce abstention conditions (s.810.3(3)–(4); s.810.4(1)–(3)). - Youth justice courts handle these orders for young people, with capped custody if a youth refuses the recognizance (YCJA s.14(2); s.142(1)(a)). ## What it means for you - Households - If you fear domestic violence, you or someone on your behalf may ask a judge for a recognizance (peace bond) with safety conditions, even if no charge is laid (s.810.03(1)–(3)). Orders can last up to 12 months, or up to 2 years if the person has a past violent conviction against any intimate partner or child (s.810.03(4)). - Judges can order no‑contact, stay‑away zones, curbs on travel, treatment programs, electronic monitoring (with Attorney General consent), and firearms prohibitions (s.810.03(6)–(8)). - If you are Indigenous (as informant or defendant), the judge must consider recommending Indigenous support services instead of an order, if available (s.810.03(4.1)). - Victims and survivors of intimate partner violence - When a judge issues a release order (bail), they must ask the prosecutor if victims were informed of their right to request a copy of that order (s.515(14.1)). - Courts must consider banning firearms and related items; if they choose not to, they must record reasons (s.810.03(7)–(9)). A coordinating clause adds “firearm part” if Bill C‑21 is in force (Coordinating Amendment s.2–3). - Privacy protections apply to any bodily samples taken to enforce abstention conditions; results are for compliance checks or breach cases, not other uses (s.810.4(1)–(3)). - Accused/Defendants in intimate partner violence cases - If charged with violence against an intimate partner and you have a past conviction or a discharge under s.730 for violence against any intimate partner, you fall under the s.515(6) bail rule that places the onus on you to show why you should be released (s.515(6)(b.1)). - If you refuse to enter a recognizance ordered under s.810.03, a judge may jail you for up to 12 months (s.810.03(5)). - If ordered to abstain from drugs/alcohol, you may be required to provide bodily samples based on reasonable grounds of breach, or at regular intervals no more often than every 7 days, with advance notice (s.810.03(6)(g)–(h); s.810.3(6)). - Youth and families - Youth justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction over these recognizance orders for young people, and if a youth refuses to enter an order, custody cannot exceed 30 days; other youth sentences may apply (YCJA s.14(2); s.142(1)(a)). - Firearms owners - If a domestic-violence recognizance includes a firearms condition, the order must state how to surrender or dispose of firearms, ammunition, licences, and certificates (s.810.03(8)). - Police, probation, and courts - Attorneys General must set designations/specifications for which bodily substances may be taken and how samples are handled and destroyed; samples must be destroyed within the prescribed period unless needed for a breach case (s.810.3(1), (3)–(4)). - Courts must consult informants about safety needs before changing recognizance conditions (s.810.03(10)–(11)). - Existing domestic‑violence peace bond applications under s.810 convert to s.810.03 on the in‑force date if not yet decided (Transitional Provision). - Timing - The Act takes effect 180 days after Royal Assent (Coming into Force). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key fiscal considerations - No direct federal appropriation or new federal fees in the bill text (Bill, passim). - Potential provincial/territorial costs for: - Additional bail hearings and recognizance proceedings (s.515; s.810.03). - Electronic monitoring where ordered and supported by the Attorney General (s.810.03(6)(d)). - Laboratory analysis and handling/destruction of bodily samples (s.810.03(6)(g)–(h); s.810.3(3)–(4)). - Supervision and enforcement of conditions, including firearms surrender logistics (s.810.03(7)–(8)). - Quantified amounts: Data unavailable from the bill text or official non‑partisan sources. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Federal appropriations | Data unavailable | — | Bill text Provincial/territorial justice system costs | Data unavailable | Ongoing | Bill text (procedural mandates/options) Electronic monitoring program costs | Data unavailable | As ordered | s.810.03(6)(d) Bodily sample testing/processing | Data unavailable | As ordered | s.810.03(6)(g)–(h); s.810.3(3)–(6) ## Proponents' View - Improves victim safety by enabling early court intervention before violence occurs, via a domestic‑violence‑specific recognizance with tailored conditions (s.810.03(1), (3), (6)–(8)). - Closes bail gap by counting prior discharges (not just convictions) and prior violence against any intimate partner, making release harder for repeat offenders (s.515(6)(b.1)). - Strengthens firearms safety by requiring judges to consider firearms prohibitions and to record reasons if not imposed; also ensures clear surrender procedures (s.810.03(7)–(9)). - Adds a simple victim‑information check so victims can access release orders and understand conditions meant to protect them (s.515(14.1)). - Builds in privacy and misuse safeguards for bodily samples, limiting use to compliance checks and breach cases and mandating destruction timelines (s.810.3(3)–(4); s.810.4(1)–(3)). - Respects Indigenous contexts by requiring consideration of Indigenous support services as an alternative when appropriate (s.810.03(4.1)). ## Opponents' View - Expands state control without conviction: recognizance orders can impose strict conditions and, on refusal, custody of up to 12 months, based only on “reasonable fear” rather than a finding of guilt (s.810.03(3), (5)). - Risk of increased pre‑trial detention: the revised bail rule applies to more accused (prior discharges and any prior intimate partner), potentially raising remand populations and related costs (s.515(6)(b.1)). - Implementation strain and unequal access: electronic monitoring, testing, and treatment capacity vary by province/territory; costs and program limits may affect consistent application (s.810.03(6)(a), (d), (g)–(h)). - Privacy and proportionality concerns: bodily samples to enforce abstention conditions raise privacy risks, even with limits; false positives/negatives could trigger breach proceedings (s.810.03(6)(g)–(h); s.810.4(1)–(3)). - Net‑widening and enforcement risks: adding a new offence pathway for breach of recognizance may bring more people into the justice system for non‑violent non‑compliance, including substance use, rather than addressing root causes (s.811 via s.811.1(1); s.810.03(6)(f)–(h)). - Ambiguity and discretion: “reasonable grounds” and “any reasonable conditions” standards may lead to uneven decisions; required firearms‑consideration could be applied inconsistently despite the duty to give reasons (s.810.03(3), (6), (7)–(9)).

No-Cost Contraception and Diabetes Drugs

## Summary This bill sets rules and timelines for building national pharmacare. It directs the federal Minister of Health to fund, by agreement with provinces and territories, universal no‑cost coverage for certain contraception and diabetes medicines and related products. It also launches work to create a national list of essential medicines, a bulk purchasing strategy, an “appropriate use” strategy, and an expert committee to advise on how to run and finance universal, single‑payer pharmacare. - Provinces and territories that sign agreements will receive federal payments to provide universal, single‑payer, first‑dollar coverage (no patient charges) for prescription contraception and diabetes treatments (Payments (1)-(2)). - The Minister must ask the Canadian Drug Agency (CDA) to draft, within 1 year of Royal Assent, a list of essential medicines to inform a national formulary (National formulary (1)). - The Minister must ask the CDA to design a national bulk purchasing strategy within 1 year (National bulk purchasing strategy). - The Minister must publish, within 1 year, a pan‑Canadian strategy on the appropriate use of prescription drugs and related products, with progress reports every 3 years (Appropriate Use Strategy (1)-(2)). - An expert committee must be created within 30 days to recommend options for operating and financing universal, single‑payer pharmacare, and must report within 1 year; the report must be tabled in Parliament (Committee of experts (1)-(3)). ## What it means for you - Households - If your province or territory signs an agreement, you will have universal, single‑payer, first‑dollar coverage for specific prescription drugs and related products for contraception and diabetes treatment. First‑dollar means no deductibles or co‑pays at the point of care (Payments (1)-(2)). Start date depends on when your province or territory signs and implements its agreement. - If your province or territory does not sign an agreement, there is no change to your current coverage under this Act (Payments (1)). - Workers with employer drug plans - The bill does not change private insurance rules. Any impact on your workplace benefits will depend on provincial implementation and how plans coordinate benefits. The Act is silent on private plan coordination (No specific section; Payments (1)-(2) describe public coverage only). - Businesses and insurers - No direct new duties in the bill. In participating provinces, public first‑dollar coverage for contraception and diabetes drugs could reduce employer plan payouts. The Act does not set rules for how private plans adjust (Payments (1)-(2)). - Health care providers and pharmacists - In participating provinces, more patients will have public coverage for contraception and diabetes drugs and related products. Coverage details and dispensing rules will follow provincial agreements (Payments (1)). - The CDA will provide advice and information on appropriate use to practitioners and patients (Request for advice (d)). A national “appropriate use” strategy will be published within 1 year, guiding safe and effective prescribing (Appropriate Use Strategy (1)). - Provinces, territories, and Indigenous peoples - Provinces and territories may enter agreements to receive federal payments for first‑dollar coverage of contraception and diabetes treatments (Payments (1)-(3)). - The federal government commits to long‑term funding to improve access and affordability, beginning with drugs for rare diseases; details are not specified in the Act (Funding commitment). - The Minister must consult you on the essential medicines list, the bulk purchasing strategy, and the national formulary work (National formulary (1)-(2); National bulk purchasing strategy). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note is attached to the bill. The Act authorizes payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for provincial/territorial agreements covering contraception and diabetes treatments; amounts, timing, and terms are at the Minister’s discretion (Payments (1), (3)). - The Act includes a general commitment to maintain long‑term funding, beginning with drugs for rare diseases, but provides no dollar amounts (Funding commitment). - Administrative activities (essential medicines list, bulk purchasing strategy, appropriate use strategy, expert committee) will have costs, but the Act provides no figures (National formulary; National bulk purchasing strategy; Appropriate Use Strategy; Committee of experts). - Overall federal and provincial spending will depend on which jurisdictions sign agreements, the scope of covered products, and implementation timelines. Quantitative estimates: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Reduces out‑of‑pocket costs immediately for contraception and diabetes treatments in participating provinces by requiring universal, single‑payer, first‑dollar coverage (Payments (1)-(2)). - Addresses cost‑related non‑adherence. The preamble notes that when people skip prescriptions for financial reasons, their health may worsen and overall health system costs can rise (Preamble). - Uses bulk purchasing to lower prices paid by public plans, improving affordability system‑wide (National bulk purchasing strategy). - Builds national consistency through an essential medicines list and a future formulary, aiming for more even access across Canada (National formulary (1)-(2)). - Promotes safe, effective prescribing and patient information through a pan‑Canadian appropriate‑use strategy and CDA advice (Request for advice (d); Appropriate Use Strategy (1)-(2)). - Creates a clear path to universal pharmacare by setting timelines and an expert committee to recommend operating and financing options for a single‑payer model (Committee of experts (1)-(2)). ## Opponents' View - Fiscal uncertainty. The bill provides no cost estimates and leaves payment amounts and timing to ministerial discretion, creating budget risk and limiting parliamentary scrutiny (Payments (3)). Quantitative impact: Data unavailable. - Uneven access risk. Because coverage depends on provincial/territorial agreements, benefits may vary by location, contrary to the goal of consistent access (Payments (1); Principles (a)). - Potential displacement of private coverage. First‑dollar, single‑payer public coverage may shift costs from private insurers to governments; the bill does not set coordination rules with private plans (Payments (1)-(2); no coordinating provisions). - Implementation risk. Tight timelines (30 days to form the committee; 1 year for the essential list, bulk purchasing, and appropriate‑use strategy) may be hard to meet, leading to delays or incomplete deliverables (Committee of experts (1); National formulary (1); National bulk purchasing strategy; Appropriate Use Strategy (1)). - Narrow scope versus expectations. The Act focuses initial funding on contraception and diabetes treatments while referring to universal pharmacare, which may create public expectations not met in the short term (Purpose; Payments (1)). - Key decisions deferred. The bill leaves the contents of the formulary, coverage conditions, and the financing model to future processes, creating uncertainty for patients, providers, and provinces (National formulary (1)-(2); Committee of experts (2)).

Renaming Child Pornography to Abuse Material

## Summary This bill changes the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” across the Criminal Code and several related federal laws. It keeps the same set of offences, tools for search and seizure, and publication bans, while updating language throughout. It also specifies that ongoing court cases remain valid and that the law takes effect one year after Royal Assent (Transitional Provision; Coming into Force). - Updates terminology in Criminal Code s.163.1 and related provisions, including warrants, forfeiture, deletion orders, and publication bans (e.g., ss.164, 164.1, 486.4, 672.501). - States penalties for making or distributing this material: indictable offence with up to 14 years in prison and a minimum 1-year sentence (s.163.1(2)-(3)). - Keeps possession and accessing offences, with updated wording but no stated change to their penalty clauses (s.163.1(4), (4.1)). - Clarifies that “accessing” includes knowingly causing the material to be viewed by oneself (s.163.1(4.2)). - Ensures ongoing proceedings and documents that still say “child pornography” remain valid and are read as the new term (Transitional Provision). - Applies the new wording across other Acts, including the Internet reporting law, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Criminal Records Act, and National Defence Act (Consequential Amendments). ## What it means for you - Households - No change in daily life for law-abiding people. The bill renames terms; it does not create new offences beyond those already in s.163.1 (Bill Summary; s.163.1). - If you are a victim or family member, courts and records will use the updated term. Publication bans that protect identities remain in place (ss.486.4(3), 672.501(2)). - Survivors and witnesses - Judges must continue to ban publication of any information that could identify a witness under 18 or a person depicted in the material. The ban references the updated term (s.486.4(3); s.672.501(2)). - Internet service providers and online platforms - The federal law on mandatory reporting changes its title and references to the new term. Your reporting duties continue; the wording is updated (Consequential Amendments, item (a)). - Media and publishers - Publication bans tied to these offences remain. The prohibitions now reference the new term but work the same way (s.486.4(3)). - Law enforcement and prosecutors - Warrants, seizure, deletion, and forfeiture powers continue, with updated terminology for material stored or made available through computer systems (ss.164, 164.1). - Charging language for making or distributing includes a maximum 14-year sentence and a minimum 1-year sentence (s.163.1(2)-(3)). - “Accessing” includes knowingly causing the material to be viewed by oneself (s.163.1(4.2)). - Transitional clause keeps current cases valid; references in existing documents are read as the new term (Transitional Provision). - Courts - Forfeiture and deletion orders refer to the updated term but keep the same standards (“balance of probabilities”) and remedies (ss.164(3)-(5); 164.1(5), (7)). - The coming-into-force date is one year after Royal Assent, allowing time to update forms, practice directions, and IT systems (Coming into Force). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations, new fines, or fees are stated in the bill text (Bill Summary; full text). - The bill provides a 1-year implementation window after Royal Assent; any government administrative costs to update laws, systems, or training are not quantified in public documents (Coming into Force). - Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Uses clearer, harm-focused language that describes “sexual abuse and exploitation,” applied consistently across the Criminal Code and other Acts (Bill Summary; s.163.1(1); Consequential Amendments). - Maintains existing investigative tools—warrants to seize or delete illegal material from computer systems—while aligning terminology for digital evidence (ss.164.1(1), (5), (7)). - Keeps court protections for victims and witnesses under publication bans, with updated wording that reduces ambiguity across proceedings (ss.486.4(3); 672.501(2)). - Ensures continuity: ongoing cases and documents remain valid, reducing disruption from the wording change (Transitional Provision). - Specifies penalties for making and distribution offences—up to 14 years, with a minimum 1 year—signaling seriousness and consistency in sentencing language (s.163.1(2)-(3)). ## Opponents' View - Limited practical change: the bill primarily renames terms and does not create new offences, alter elements of offences, or add reporting duties, so it may not change enforcement outcomes (s.163.1; Consequential Amendments). - Administrative burden to update statutes, forms, training materials, and IT systems across justice and corrections, with no published cost estimates (Consequential Amendments; Data unavailable). - Risk of short-term confusion during the transition between old and new terminology, despite the clause that preserves ongoing cases (Transitional Provision). - Retains mandatory minimum sentences of 1 year for making and distribution offences, which some argue reduce judicial discretion in complex cases (s.163.1(2)-(3)).

One Canadian Economy Act

## Summary - This bill creates two new laws. One aims to ease trade and worker mobility within Canada. The other sets a faster path to approve big projects that are in the national interest. - It would treat goods, services, and some worker licenses that meet one province’s or territory’s rules as meeting comparable federal rules. - It would let the federal cabinet label certain large projects as “national interest projects” and bundle federal approvals into one document with conditions. - It adds public transparency, Indigenous consultation, and national security checks for these projects. - Some normal federal review steps would be shortened or replaced, with guardrails for safety, security, and the environment. - Parts of the law would be reviewed after five years. Key changes - Goods and services: If they meet a province’s or territory’s standards, they are treated as meeting comparable federal requirements for moving across provinces. - Workers: If you hold a provincial or territorial authorization for an occupation, a comparable federal authorization must be issued to you. - Overrides: If there is a conflict, these new trade and mobility rules would override other federal rules. - National interest projects: Cabinet can add projects to a public list after 30 days’ notice and consultation; consent is needed if the project is only under provincial or territorial powers. - Streamlined approvals: For listed projects, required federal determinations are deemed favourable. The minister must issue one document that sets all conditions and counts as the needed federal authorizations. - Safeguards: Nuclear and energy regulators must confirm safety and security. Indigenous peoples must be consulted with a public report. All studies, conditions, and reasons must be published before approval. Projects must start within five years or approvals expire. - Limits and oversight: Powers to add projects or make related regulations end after five years and can’t be used when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. Annual independent reviews and public reports are required. ## What it means for you - Workers and professionals - Easier to work across Canada if your job also needs a federal authorization. Your provincial or territorial authorization would be recognized, and a comparable federal one must be issued. - Less duplicate testing or paperwork to get federal recognition. - Businesses selling across provinces - If your product or service meets rules in one province or territory, it would be treated as meeting comparable federal rules for moving it across Canada. - Less duplication of federal compliance steps tied to interprovincial trade. - Consumers - Potential for more choice and lower costs if products and services can move more easily across provinces. - Large project developers (energy, transport, corridors, Northern projects, etc.) - A faster, one-window federal process if your project is listed as in the national interest. - You must still meet requirements, pay fees, and follow conditions. All conditions will be public before approval. - You must start the project within five years or the authorization expires. - Indigenous peoples - Required consultation with a process for active and meaningful participation. - A public report on consultations must be posted within 60 days of approval. - Provinces and territories - The federal government must consult you before listing a project in your jurisdiction and obtain written consent if it falls in your exclusive powers. - Trade and mobility changes target federal barriers; provincial rules still apply. - Environment and safety - Some early planning steps in the federal impact assessment process would not apply to listed projects, but an impact assessment is still required. - Nuclear and energy projects cannot be approved through this process unless safety and security are confirmed by the relevant regulators. - Project studies, recommendations, and reasons for decisions must be published. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Cuts red tape so goods, services, and workers can move more freely within Canada, helping the economy. - Speeds up critical national projects, boosting jobs, growth, trade corridors, and energy security. - Gives investors certainty through a clear, time-bound process and one federal authorization document. - Maintains protections: independent safety checks for nuclear and energy, public conditions and studies, national security reviews, and required Indigenous consultation. - Respects provincial roles by requiring consent for projects in areas that are only provincial or territorial. - Adds accountability with annual independent reviews and public reporting. ## Opponents' View - Centralizes power in cabinet and a minister, which could weaken the role of independent regulators and normal review steps. - “Deeming” favourable federal determinations may lower environmental or safety scrutiny, even with conditions attached. - Alters parts of the impact assessment process and could reduce early public participation, risking legal challenges. - Treating provincial standards as “comparable” to federal ones may cause uneven protection or a “race to the bottom.” - Indigenous consultation requirements may not equal consent, raising concerns about rights and project legitimacy. - Transparency and new offices or registries may still leave gaps, and shifting rules could create confusion for businesses and regulators.

Modernized Rules for Atlantic Offshore Energy

## Summary Bill C-49 updates the federal-provincial Atlantic Accord laws for Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and Nova Scotia (NS). It keeps joint federal–provincial control over offshore oil and gas, and adds a full legal framework for offshore renewable energy (like wind). It renames the boards as “Offshore Energy Regulators,” sets up seabed licensing for renewables, extends safety and environmental rules, and allows activity limits in conservation areas. - Creates Offshore Energy Regulators and gives them authority over offshore renewables, not just oil and gas (s.9; Part III headings). - Sets a new “submerged land licence” system and call-for-bids process for renewables, with federal and provincial ministers’ approval needed (Division V – Offshore Renewable Energy; ss. 38.1–38.3 NS; ss. 40.1–40.3 NL). - Extends safety, environmental protection, and worker health rules to renewable projects; requires authorizations, impact assessments, and proof of financial capacity (Part III; s. 138.01 NL; s. 142.011 NS; Impact Assessment ss. 138.012 NL, 142.013 NS). - Allows cabinet to prohibit oil, gas, or renewable activities in areas that are or may be designated for environmental/wildlife protection; creates compensation and cancellation processes for existing interests (s. 56.1, 56.2–56.5 NL; s. 59.1, 59.2–59.5 NS). - Sets a strict debris liability regime for renewables, including $1 billion no‑fault liability caps and required financial assurances (s. 183.19–183.21 NL; s. 188.19–188.21 NS). - Limits future significant discovery licences to 25 years and modernizes rules for transboundary oil and gas pools (s. 75(3) NL; s. 78(3) NS; Transboundary Pools, ss. 183.xx NL; 188.xx NS). Note: Many provisions take effect on dates set by order-in-council and depend on future regulations (Part 3 – Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households - More regulatory clarity for offshore wind and other marine renewables could enable projects over time. Any bill-driven electricity price or jobs impact is uncertain and depends on future projects and regulations. Data unavailable. - Activities may be barred in or near protected areas, which could reduce environmental risks near coasts (s. 56.1 NL; s. 59.1 NS). - Workers (offshore oil, gas, and renewables) - Offshore renewables now fall under the same safety culture: authorizations, facility “fit for purpose” declarations, and oversight by a Chief Safety Officer (s. 138.01(3), 139.1 NL; s. 142.011(3), 143.1 NS). - Occupational health and safety regime applies offshore for renewables; certain unattended renewable sites may be inspected less frequently (monthly inspection exception) (s. 205.013(2), 205.019(1.1) NL; s. 210.013(2), 210.019(1.1) NS). - Canada Labour Code Parts II and III do not apply offshore; provincial “social legislation” applies instead (ss. 205.004–205.007 NL; ss. 210.004–210.007 NS). - Indigenous peoples - The Crown may rely on the Regulators to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate impacts on s.35 rights for offshore works (new clauses after s.17 NL; after s.18 NS). - Participant funding programs may be set up to support engagement (Part III – Participant Funding Program). - Fishers and coastal communities - Calls for bids and licence terms must consider effects on fishing activities; “full and fair opportunity” and participation for under-represented groups are stated principles (s. 96.6 NL; s. 98.7 NS). - If renewable debris causes loss or damage (including to fishing income), claims can be made; operators have up to $1 billion no‑fault liability, plus fault-based liability (s. 183.19 NL; s. 188.19 NS). - Businesses (renewable developers) - You must obtain a submerged land licence through a call for bids (with published criteria) or specific exceptions, then an operations authorization, and meet impact assessment gateways (Division V; ss. 138.012 NL; 142.013 NS). - Proof of financial resources and separate financial responsibility (e.g., letter of credit) is required; regulator can order direct payment of claims from security (ss. 183.2 NL; 188.2 NS). - Ministers must approve key Regulator recommendations on renewables, which adds a political approval step and timelines (60 days, with possible 30‑day extension) (ss. 38.1–38.3 NS; ss. 40.1–40.3 NL). - Activities may be prohibited in areas that are or “may be” identified as protected; existing interests can be surrendered with negotiated compensation or cancelled with set compensation (s. 56.1, 56.2–56.5 NL; s. 59.1, 59.2–59.5 NS). - Businesses (oil and gas) - Significant discovery licences issued in future are capped at 25 years, with limited extensions (s. 75(3) NL; s. 78(3) NS). - New rules govern transboundary pools, joint exploitation agreements, and unitization with expert dispute resolution (Transboundary Pools, ss. 183.xx NL; 188.xx NS). - Cabinet may regulate access, tolls, and tariffs for use of existing petroleum infrastructure by third parties (s. 149(1)(c)(ii) NL; s. 153(1)(c)(ii) NS). - Local and provincial governments - Regulators can order public bodies to take measures on abandoned facilities; non-compliance can trigger Regulator action and potential costs (s. 183.21 NL; s. 188.21 NS). - Provinces must approve many new regulations; ministers co‑decide key renewable matters (e.g., bid calls and prohibitions) (s. 7 NL; s. 6 NS; ss. 38.1–38.3 NS; 40.1–40.3 NL). - Timing - Most sections take effect on dates set by the Governor in Council; several depend on regulations and provincial approvals (Part 3 – Coming into Force; s. 6 NS; s. 7 NL). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Federal–provincial regulator budgets: Canada pays 50% of approved Regulator expenditures; either government may fully fund specific requested activities (s. 27(4), 27(4.1) NL; s. 28(4), 28(4.1) NS). Amounts not stated. - Fees and charges: Regulators may charge cost‑recovery fees for activities under the Acts and the Impact Assessment Act; fees cannot exceed costs (s. 29.1 NL; s. 30.1 NS). Revenue impact unknown. - Revenues from offshore renewables: “Revenues, interest and penalties” are reserved to Canada but mirror provincial regimes and are remitted to the Receiver General; Regulators may collect and administer (s. 97.1, 98–100 NL; s. 99.1, 100–102 NS). Amounts depend on future projects. - Participant funding programs: Regulators may establish programs to support public and Indigenous participation (Part III – Participant Funding Program). Funding levels not specified. - Enforcement and inquiries: Regulators can conduct inquiries into serious incidents and publish reports (s. 183.23 NL; s. 188.23 NS). Cost impact not specified. Table: Key fiscal mechanisms (no dollar estimates provided) Item | Amount | Frequency | Source Fees (cost recovery) | Data unavailable | Ongoing | s. 29.1 NL; s. 30.1 NS Federal share of Regulators’ budgets | 50% of approved budgets | Annual | s. 27(4) NL; s. 28(4) NS Government‑requested activities | 100% by requesting government | As incurred | s. 27(4.1) NL; s. 28(4.1) NS Offshore renewables revenues to Canada | Data unavailable | As incurred | s. 97.1 NL; s. 99.1 NS Participant funding | Data unavailable | As established | Part III – Participant Funding Program ## Proponents' View - Builds a “one‑window” style regime for offshore renewables by expanding the existing joint boards, which reduces uncertainty and duplication for developers (s. 9; Division V – Offshore Renewable Energy). - Improves safety and environmental protection by extending the proven offshore safety system, mandatory authorizations, impact assessment gatekeeping, and fitness declarations to renewables (s. 138.01(3), 139.1 NL; s. 142.011(3), 143.1 NS; s. 138.012 NL; s. 142.013 NS). - Protects sensitive areas by allowing cabinet to prohibit oil, gas, or renewable activities in areas that are or may be designated for conservation, with structured compensation for affected interest holders (s. 56.1, 56.2–56.5 NL; s. 59.1, 59.2–59.5 NS). - Provides clear seabed access through submerged land licences, transparent bid calls, and published criteria, which can speed early-stage site control (Division V – Calls for bids and publication). - Sets clear liability and financial assurance rules for renewable project debris, including $1 billion no‑fault liability, which protects fishers, Indigenous harvesters, and the public (s. 183.19–183.21 NL; s. 188.19–188.21 NS). - States principles for Canadian participation and inclusion of under‑represented groups in supply chains and jobs; directs consideration of effects on fishing (s. 96.6 NL; s. 98.7 NS). ## Opponents' View - Adds ministerial approval to key renewable licensing steps, which could slow approvals and inject political risk; ministers can extend decision timelines and delay bid calls (ss. 40.1–40.3 NL; ss. 38.1–38.3 NS). - Creates uncertainty by allowing prohibitions in areas that “may be” identified for conservation; while compensation exists, claims beyond set compensation are barred, which could chill investment (s. 56.1, 56.3(3) NL; s. 59.1, 59.5(3) NS). - Increases developer costs with impact assessment gating, cost‑recovery fees, financial resource proofs, and security instruments; small or new entrants may face higher barriers (s. 29.1 NL; s. 30.1 NS; ss. 183.2 NL; 188.2 NS). - Reduces monthly inspections for normally unattended renewable sites, which could pose oversight gaps if not managed carefully (s. 205.013(2), 205.019(1.1) NL; s. 210.013(2), 210.019(1.1) NS). - Lets Regulators order governments and local authorities to act on abandoned facilities, creating potential unfunded obligations if orders are issued and later costs are disputed (s. 183.21 NL; s. 188.21 NS). - Changes oil and gas tenure by capping future significant discovery licences at 25 years, which some may view as weakening long‑term security for marginal finds (s. 75(3) NL; s. 78(3) NS).

Broadcast regulator to consult provinces on French markets

## Summary This bill changes the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. It would require the CRTC to consult provincial governments before it regulates parts of the broadcasting system that affect Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness or French‑speaking markets in any province (Bill, s.1 adding CRTC Act s.12(1.1)). The bill sets a duty to consult, but it does not give provinces a veto or set rules for how to consult. - Requires the CRTC to consult Quebec on matters tied to Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness (Bill, s.1). - Requires the CRTC to consult each province on matters tied to French‑speaking markets in that province (Bill, s.1). - Applies to broadcasting matters; it does not mention telecommunications. - Sets no timelines, methods, or penalties for consultation. - Adds no new funding, fees, or taxes. ## What it means for you - Households (French‑speaking viewers and listeners) - No immediate change to services. The CRTC would need to hear from your provincial government before it makes broadcasting rules that affect French‑language markets. Timing depends on how the CRTC designs the consultation process (Bill, s.1). - Workers in media and culture - Possible changes in how rules are developed for French‑language programming and markets. The bill adds a consultation step but does not set content quotas or funding levels (Bill, s.1). - Broadcasters and online streaming services - When CRTC policies or decisions affect Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness or French‑language markets, the process would include provincial consultation. This may add steps and could affect timelines for new or revised rules (Bill, s.1). - Provincial governments - Formal right to be consulted by the CRTC on broadcasting matters that affect French‑speaking markets in your province, and by Quebec on its cultural distinctiveness. Provinces would need capacity to respond within CRTC timelines (Bill, s.1). - CRTC - Must set up and run consultations with Quebec and other provinces before acting on covered broadcasting matters. The bill does not define “consult,” timelines, or how to resolve disagreement (Bill, s.1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - The bill contains no appropriations, tax changes, or fees (Bill, s.1). - Any cost would be administrative (staff time, meetings, translation) for the CRTC to run consultations. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Gives Quebec and French‑speaking communities a formal voice before federal broadcasting rules are set, leading to policies that better reflect linguistic and cultural realities (Bill, s.1). - Builds on existing federal policy that broadcasting should reflect Canada’s linguistic duality and support official language minority communities (Broadcasting Act, s.3(1)). - Keeps federal authority intact; it requires consultation but does not grant a veto to provinces (Bill, s.1). - Could improve rule quality by adding local market knowledge, especially for French‑language audiences outside Quebec (Bill, s.1). ## Opponents' View - Could slow CRTC decisions because it adds a mandatory step without deadlines or a clear process (Bill, s.1). - Uses broad terms (“cultural distinctiveness,” “French‑speaking markets”) that are undefined, which may create disputes about when consultation is required (Bill, s.1). - May duplicate existing CRTC engagement and duties under the Broadcasting Act to reflect linguistic duality, adding red tape without clear benefit (Broadcasting Act, s.3(1)). - Risk of uneven national policy if provincial input pulls in different directions, increasing uncertainty for broadcasters and online services (Bill, s.1). - Lacks enforcement details; it is unclear what happens if the CRTC decides consultation is not required and proceeds anyway (Bill, s.1).

Omnibus Budget Law: Taxes, Competition, Housing

## Summary The Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 (Bill C-59) is a large omnibus law that implements tax, competition, consumer, labour, environmental, and governance measures announced in Budget 2023 and the November 21, 2023 Fall Economic Statement. It creates a new Digital Services Tax, changes income tax and GST/HST rules, strengthens competition law (including greenwashing and drip‑pricing), updates anti‑money laundering laws (including sanctions evasion), sets a 2% tax on listed companies’ share buybacks, establishes the Canada Water Agency, creates a federal Housing/Infrastructure department, and adds new Employment Insurance and labour protections. - New 3% Digital Services Tax on large firms’ Canadian digital revenues, with first-year catch‑up for prior years after 2021 (Part 2). - 2% tax on public companies’ net share buybacks after 2023 (Part II.2). - Stronger Competition Act: substantiation for environmental claims, broader merger review tools, faster interim relief, and limited private access with potential monetary remedies (Part 5, Division 6). - Clean economy incentives (CCUS and clean technology investment tax credits) plus labour requirements (prevailing wage and apprentices) to receive the full credit (Part 1, ss. 127.44, 127.45, 127.46). - More robust anti‑avoidance and international tax rules, and limits on interest deductibility (EIFEL) and hybrid mismatch arrangements (Part 1). - EI: new 15‑week benefit for responsibilities related to adoption placements or arrival of newborns where the birth parent is not a parent; corresponding federal labour leave; and new pregnancy‑loss leave (Part 5, Division 2; Part 5, Division 12). - Establishes the Canada Water Agency and a new Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities (Part 5, Divisions 3 and 11). - GST/HST and excise changes: psychotherapy and counselling therapy are GST/HST‑exempt services; vaping products stamping/marking and compliance tightened; certain rental housing rebate extension to some co‑ops (Part 3; Part 4). - AML/ATF: expands reporting (including sanctions evasion), adds CBSA goods‑related declarations, and strengthens Criminal Code proceeds‑of‑crime tools, including for digital assets (Part 5, Division 8). ## What it means for you - Households - Climate Action Incentive Payment (CAIP) rural supplement increases from 10% to 20% for 2023 and later years; 2016 census data used for 2023–2024 eligibility (Part 1 s. 122.8). - Psychotherapy and counselling therapy provided by licensed practitioners is GST/HST‑exempt, reducing out‑of‑pocket cost (Part 3, s. 123(1), Schedule V). - New EI benefit: up to 15 weeks for responsibilities related to the placement of a child for adoption or the arrival of a newborn when the birth parent is not a parent (available once regulations and systems are in place) (Part 5, Division 12). - Canada Labour Code: new 3‑day paid leave for pregnancy loss, updated bereavement leave, and up to 16‑week leave for adoption placement/arrival (federally regulated workers) (Part 5, Division 2). - Vaping: stronger stamping/marking, importer age minimum (18), penalties for non‑compliance; consumers may see compliance changes on packaging (Part 4). - Workers (federally regulated) - New pregnancy‑loss leave (3 days, first 3 paid after 3 months), and an adoption/placement leave (up to 16 weeks), in addition to existing parental leave (Part 5, Division 2). - Stronger right‑to‑know on job postings and leave scheduling requirements around notice (Part 5, Division 2). - Businesses - Digital Services Tax (DST): 3% on in‑scope Canadian digital services revenue for groups with global revenue ≥ €750,000,000 and Canadian in‑scope revenue > $20,000,000; first year includes a catch‑up amount for 2022–2023 (Part 2). - 2% tax on net equity repurchases by listed corporations/trusts/partnerships, net of qualifying issuances; $1,000,000 de minimis; applies to transactions after 2023 (Part II.2). - Clean Technology and CCUS investment tax credits available for eligible assets; full rates require meeting prevailing wage and apprentice hour requirements or face a 10‑point reduction and potential penalties for non‑compliance (Part 1, ss. 127.44–127.46). - Interest expense limitation (EIFEL): generally caps net interest and financing deductions at 30% of adjusted taxable income (phased from 40% for certain short‑year cases), with group ratio and carryforwards; anti‑avoidance rules included (Part 1, s. 18.2, 18.21). - Anti‑hybrid mismatch rules deny deductions or include amounts to neutralize deduction/non‑inclusion outcomes with cross‑border instruments or entities (Part 1, s. 12.7, 18.4). - Competition law changes: - Environmental claims (product or business) must be backed by adequate tests/substantiation; drip‑pricing clarified; expanded interim orders; extended merger challenge window (Part 5, Division 6). - Refusal‑to‑deal can address withholding “means of diagnosis or repair” (helpful to independent repair) (Part 5, Division 6). - Private applicants (with leave) can seek monetary payments up to benefit derived (not damages) in certain civil cases (Part 5, Division 6). - GST/HST: higher documentation thresholds for input tax credits ($30→$100; $150→$500); joint venture election expanded to pipeline/terminal operations; psychotherapy and counselling therapy exempt (Part 3). - Vaping/cannabis excise administration changes; vaping stamp/marking duties and penalties; importers must be 18+ (Part 4). - Share buyback and dividend deduction limits: financial institutions lose inter‑corporate dividend deduction on certain mark‑to‑market shares (Part 1 s. 112(2.01)). - Employee Ownership Trusts: facilitation measures and specific tax rules for qualifying transfers (Part 1). - Intergenerational business transfer rules tightened to ensure “genuine” transfers; GAAR strengthened with an economic substance rule, extended reassessment period, and a new GAAR penalty (Part 1; s. 245; s. 84.1). - AML/ATF obligations expanded (including sanctions evasion reporting) for regulated entities; CBSA adds goods‑related declarations; new powers on digital assets (Part 5, Division 8). - Provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous organizations - Canada Water Agency established to coordinate federal freshwater efforts; aligns with Freshwater Action Plan and supports federal‑provincial‑territorial/Indigenous collaboration (Part 5, Division 3). - Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities created; existing infrastructure programs continue under the new department (Part 5, Division 11). - Federal‑provincial payment transparency: amounts/dates under the Federal‑Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to be published online (Part 5, Division 9). - Service users and non‑profits - Dental care plan technical data‑sharing fix to support administration (Part 1; related acts). - Public post‑secondary institutions excluded from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act as prescribed (Part 5, Division 7). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Canada Water Agency: Budget 2023 announced $85.1 million over 5 years to establish the Agency, and $21.0 million ongoing (Budget 2023). The Act creates the Agency (Part 5, Division 3). - Digital Services Tax: Budget 2021 estimated revenue of $3.4 billion over five years when implemented (Budget 2021). The Act enacts the DST framework (Part 2). - 2% Share Buyback Tax: Budget 2023 estimated $2.5 billion in revenue over five years (Budget 2023). The Act enacts the tax (Part II.2). - Clean economy investment tax credits (CCUS and Clean Technology): enacted in this bill; fiscal impacts were presented in recent budgets; precise multi‑year costs depend on uptake and are administered via the tax system (Part 1, ss. 127.44, 127.45). Data unavailable. - CAIP rural supplement increase (10%→20%): Data unavailable on annual cost in this bill; payouts occur via the existing Climate Action Incentive Payment system (Part 1 s. 122.8). - Competition Act, AML/ATF enforcement, and departmental reorganizations: incremental administration costs not itemized in the bill. Data unavailable. Notes: - Figures cited above rely on prior federal budget documents; this Act primarily provides the legislative authority (various Parts and Divisions). ## Proponents' View - Improves tax fairness and revenues from global and large domestic firms: - 3% Digital Services Tax targets very large groups with €750,000,000+ global revenues and significant Canadian digital revenue; first‑year catch‑up addresses prior years’ activities after 2021 (Part 2). Prior federal estimates projected multi‑billion revenue (Budget 2021). - 2% buyback tax nudges firms toward real investment and helps level after‑tax treatment of distributions (Part II.2). Budget 2023 projected $2.5 billion over five years (Budget 2023). - Drives clean investment with labour benefits: - CCUS and Clean Tech investment tax credits lower capital costs for decarbonization and clean power/storage; prevailing wage and apprenticeship rules help ensure workers share in benefits and expand the skilled workforce (Part 1, ss. 127.44–127.46). - Strengthens competition and consumer protection: - Requires “green” claims to be backed by adequate testing or substantiation; clarifies drip‑pricing; expands interim orders to stop harm; and lengthens the time to challenge non‑notified mergers (Part 5, Division 6). - Supports independent repair by allowing orders to address refusal to supply means of diagnosis/repair (Part 5, Division 6). - Modernizes international tax and combats avoidance: - Caps net interest deductions (EIFEL), neutralizes hybrid mismatches, updates foreign affiliate rules, and strengthens GAAR with an economic substance test and penalty (Part 1). - Concrete help for families and workers: - New EI benefit (15 weeks) for adoption/placement responsibilities and new pregnancy‑loss leave and placement leave under the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated workers (Part 5, Divisions 2 and 12). - CAIP rural supplement increase recognizes higher energy costs outside urban areas (Part 1 s. 122.8). - Better water and housing governance: - Canada Water Agency improves coordination of freshwater science and programs (Part 5, Division 3). - New Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities aligns federal tools to accelerate housing and infrastructure outcomes (Part 5, Division 11). ## Opponents' View - Trade and double‑taxation risk with the Digital Services Tax: - The DST’s retroactive component and unilateral design could trigger foreign retaliation or disputes; effective yield depends on regulations and international developments (Part 2). Assumes no trade countermeasures. - Investment and compliance burden for businesses: - 2% buyback tax may distort capital allocation and raise cost of capital; anti‑avoidance and interest‑limitation rules (EIFEL) add complexity and may raise financing costs, especially for capital‑intensive sectors (Part II.2; Part 1 s. 18.2). - Prevailing wage and apprentice rules for clean credits require new verification systems; penalties for non‑compliance add risk (Part 1, s. 127.46). - Competition law changes may create uncertainty: - New environmental substantiation duty and expanded private access with monetary payments introduce litigation exposure; merger rules broadened (e.g., coordination effects) could chill pro‑competitive deals (Part 5, Division 6). Assumes adequate guidance and Tribunal capacity. - Limited immediate affordability relief: - Apart from rural CAIP top‑up and GST/HST therapy exemption, most measures are structural; near‑term household cost impacts are modest (Part 1; Part 3). - Administrative capacity and costs: - AML/ATF expansions, CBSA declarations, and new agencies/departments require staffing, IT, and guidance; the bill does not include detailed appropriations (Part 5, Division 8; Part 5, Divisions 3 and 11). Data unavailable. - EI and employer impacts: - New EI benefit and labour leaves increase program outlays (from the EI Operating Account) and workplace scheduling pressures in federally regulated sectors (Part 5, Divisions 2 and 12). No detailed costings in this Act.

Old Age Security Up 10%, Work Pays More

## Summary This bill changes the Old Age Security (OAS) Act to give a 10% increase to the full OAS pension for everyone aged 65 or older and to let low‑income seniors keep more of their Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) when they work. It also removes the separate 10% top‑up that currently applies only to people aged 75 or older by making the higher base amount apply to all (Bill s. 7(1), repeal of s. 7(5)). The bill updates the GIS earnings exemption from employment or self‑employment from $5,000 to $6,500 and expands the partial exemption band (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - Raises the full monthly OAS pension for all 65+; the act sets it at $756.32 for the payment quarter starting January 1 of the stated year, with normal indexation after (Bill s. 7(1)). - Ends the separate 75+ top‑up by folding the 10% increase into the base for everyone 65+ (repeal of s. 7(5)). - Increases the GIS full earnings exemption to $6,500 and extends the 50% partial exemption on the next $13,000 of earnings (max total exemption $13,000) (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - Keeps the voluntary deferral increase at 0.6% per month for late applicants (Bill s. 7.1(2)); removes now‑redundant clauses (repeal of s. 7.1(5)-(6)). - Updates related definitions and rounding rules used to calculate benefits (Bill s. 12(6)(b), s. 22(1)). ## What it means for you - Households (seniors 65+) - OAS pension increases by 10% for everyone aged 65 or older. The act sets the full monthly pension at $756.32 for the payment quarter that starts January 1 of the specified year; amounts continue to be indexed quarterly after that (Bill s. 7(1)). - Seniors aged 75+ keep the same level of OAS as today because the 10% is built into the base for all ages and the separate 75+ top‑up is repealed (Bill s. 7(1); repeal of s. 7(5)). - If you defer starting OAS, your pension still rises by 0.6% for each month of deferral until approval (Bill s. 7.1(2)). - Workers (low‑income seniors on GIS) - You can earn up to $6,500 from work in a year without any GIS reduction (was $5,000) (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - You also get a 50% exemption on the next $13,000 of earnings above $6,500. This means: - Maximum total earnings counted for exemption rise to $19,500. - Maximum total deduction used in the GIS calculation rises to $13,000 (from $10,000) (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - Allowance/Allowance for the Survivor recipients (ages 60–64) - These benefits use the “pension equivalent,” which the bill aligns with the updated full OAS amount. This change can raise Allowance amounts in line with the higher OAS base (Bill s. 22(1)). - High‑income seniors - The bill does not change the OAS recovery tax rules under existing law. Seniors with high incomes who already repay some or all OAS through the recovery tax would see their net gains reduced under those existing rules. Data unavailable on the number affected by this bill. - Timing - The bill applies the new OAS amount starting in the payment quarter that begins on January 1 of the stated year, and applies the new GIS earnings exemption for months after June of the stated year (exact year not shown in the provided text) (Bill s. 7(1); s. 2(b.1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note found in the provided materials. Data unavailable. - Statutory spending effects embedded in the bill: - Raises the OAS full pension base for all 65+ by 10% and removes the separate 75+ top‑up, holding 75+ harmless (Bill s. 7(1); repeal of s. 7(5)). - Increases GIS outlays by allowing higher earnings before benefits are reduced: full exemption to $6,500 and an expanded 50% partial exemption up to an additional $13,000 (max total deduction $13,000) (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - No explicit appropriations, taxes, or fees are stated in the bill text. Ongoing costs would flow automatically through existing OAS/GIS programs. Data unavailable for yearly totals. ## Proponents' View - Improves fairness by giving the 10% OAS increase to all seniors 65+, not only those 75+ (Bill s. 7(1); repeal of s. 7(5)). - Helps with cost of living by raising the base OAS amount, which is indexed quarterly to inflation under existing rules (Bill s. 7(1)). - Encourages and rewards work by low‑income seniors by raising the full earnings exemption to $6,500 and expanding the partial exemption band, increasing the maximum deduction used in GIS from $10,000 to $13,000 (Bill s. 2(b.1)). - Simplifies administration by removing the age‑based top‑up and using a single OAS base amount for all seniors 65+ (Bill s. 7(1); repeal of s. 7(5)). - Aligns related benefits by updating the “pension equivalent” used to calculate Allowance amounts, so these benefits also reflect the higher OAS base (Bill s. 22(1)). ## Opponents' View - Cost risk: Expanding the 10% increase to all 65–74 recipients and easing GIS clawbacks would raise federal statutory spending; no official cost estimate is provided in the bill (Data unavailable). - Targeting concerns: A universal 10% OAS increase goes to all seniors 65+, including middle‑ and higher‑income seniors who are not in financial need; the bill does not add new income targeting (Bill s. 7(1)). - Interaction effects: Higher OAS is taxable and may affect eligibility for some income‑tested provincial/territorial benefits that use net income; the bill does not address these downstream impacts. Data unavailable on scale. - Implementation details: The text leaves specific start-year blanks (“January 1, [year]” and “after June [year]”), which may create timing uncertainty until finalized (Bill s. 7(1); s. 2(b.1)). - Policy trade‑offs: Raising the GIS earnings exemption benefits working seniors but may offer no gain to non‑working GIS recipients; the bill does not include complementary measures for non‑workers (Bill s. 2(b.1)).

Roadmap for Guaranteed Livable Basic Income

## Summary This bill would require the federal Minister of Finance to create a national framework for a “guaranteed livable basic income” (GLBI) for people in Canada age 18 and over. It does not create a basic income program or pay anyone money now. It sets rules for how a future program should be designed and reported to Parliament (s.3–5). - Covers “any person over the age of 17,” including temporary workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants (s.3(1)). - Requires consultations with provinces, Indigenous elders and governing bodies, and other stakeholders (s.3(2)). - Sets design rules: region-based livable amounts; no work or school requirement to qualify; no cuts to exceptional disability or health supports (s.3(3)(a)-(d)). - Requires a public framework report within 1 year of the Act taking effect, and annual effectiveness reviews after 2 years (s.4–5). - Creates national standards to guide provinces on related health and social supports (s.3(3)(b)). - Publishes reports online after tabling in Parliament (s.4(2)). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate payments or tax changes. The bill orders planning and reporting only (s.3–5). - If a GLBI is later created under this framework, adults 18+ could qualify even if they are students, unemployed, or working (s.3(1), s.3(3)(c)). - The framework must prevent cuts to benefits that meet exceptional health or disability needs (s.3(3)(d)). - Workers and job seekers - No work, training, or school requirement would be allowed as a condition for a future GLBI under this framework (s.3(3)(c)). - No change to Employment Insurance or other programs at this stage. The bill does not amend existing benefits. - Persons with disabilities and people with high health needs - The framework must protect specialized supports from being reduced if a GLBI is implemented (s.3(3)(d)). - No immediate change to current disability programs. - Indigenous peoples and communities - Indigenous elders and Indigenous governing bodies must be consulted in building the framework (s.3(2)). - No direct program change now; the framework would shape future design. - Provinces and territories - Required to be consulted across health, disability, education, and social development (s.3(2)). - Would receive “national standards” to guide how supports complement a GLBI (s.3(3)(b)). The bill does not force provinces to fund or deliver a program. - Businesses and employers - No direct obligations or costs in this bill. - Timeline and transparency - Framework report due within 1 year after the Act takes effect, then posted online within 10 days after tabling in both Houses (s.4). - Effectiveness review due within 2 years after the first report is tabled, then annually (s.5). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill creates no cash benefits, taxes, or fees. It mandates development of a framework and recurring reports (s.3–5). - No appropriations are included in the bill text. Data unavailable on expected administrative costs. - Any future GLBI costs would depend on choices not set here (benefit level, phase-out rate, eligibility, and how provincial programs interact). This bill does not define those parameters (s.3(3)). ## Proponents' View - Builds a clear path toward reducing poverty and improving health and education outcomes by requiring a national GLBI framework and public reporting (Preamble; s.4–5). - Ensures broad inclusion: adults 18+ including temporary workers, permanent residents, and refugee claimants are in scope (s.3(1)). - Protects people with disabilities by forbidding cuts to exceptional health/disability supports if a GLBI is implemented (s.3(3)(d)). - Reduces barriers by banning work, training, or school requirements for eligibility under the framework (s.3(3)(c)). - Matches benefit levels to real costs of living in each region, improving adequacy (s.3(3)(a)). - Requires consultation with provinces and Indigenous governing bodies, which may improve policy fit and uptake (s.3(2)). Assumptions noted: Benefits to poverty and health depend on later governments adopting and funding a program; this bill only sets the framework. ## Opponents' View - Risks federal overreach into provincial areas (health, social services) by setting national standards that “guide” provincial implementation, which could cause intergovernmental conflict or duplication (s.3(3)(b)). - Commits to no work or school requirement, which critics argue could reduce work effort; the bill does not require a labour market impact assessment before setting standards (s.3(3)(c)). - Could set expectations for a costly program without defining funding sources or caps; the bill offers no fiscal guardrails. Data unavailable for cost magnitude in this bill. - The promise not to reduce disability/health supports may be difficult to enforce across jurisdictions; the bill includes no enforcement tools or penalties (s.3(3)(d)). - Broad eligibility, including non-citizens, may raise administrative complexity; the bill does not define residency duration or verification rules (s.3(1)). - Timeline risk: Defining region-specific “livable” amounts and national standards within 1 year may strain capacity, risking delays or a framework that is too general to guide implementation (s.3(3)(a)-(b), s.4(1)). Assumptions noted: Cost and work-impact concerns presume a generous, widely available GLBI; this bill does not set benefit levels or implement the program.

Ports and Rail Get Tougher Safety Rules

## Summary This bill changes several transport laws to improve safety and security at ports, on railways, and for dangerous goods. It gives the federal transport minister and agencies more tools to inspect, order fixes, set penalties, and manage risks. It also adds new planning, reporting, and community engagement duties for port authorities, including climate plans. Many details will be set later by regulations and orders in council. - Importers must make goods available for customs checks, including delivery to secure areas on request (Customs Act, new requirements). - Rail companies face new security duties, stronger penalties, and possible security clearances; unruly or dangerous behaviour on trains or in stations is banned (Railway Safety Act, new offences and orders). - Anyone who handles dangerous goods must register; a new administrative monetary penalty (AMP) regime applies (Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, new registration and AMPs). - The transport minister can issue interim orders and emergency directions for marine security; penalties increase; 14‑day anchorage limits apply in a defined B.C. area (Marine Transportation Security Act, new powers and Schedule). - Port authorities get new roles in traffic management, must create advisory committees with Indigenous representation, and must file climate plans and reports; thermal coal loading is to be banned by regulation no later than December 31, 2030 (Canada Marine Act, new duties and regulation powers). - Certain port‑related mergers must be reported at a lower threshold of CAD $10,000,000; the minister may use automated systems and remote entry for compliance work (Canada Transportation Act, s.53.1 and new tech provisions). ## What it means for you - Households (near ports and rail lines) - Less unruly behaviour at stations and on trains due to new prohibitions and enforcement (Railway Safety Act, “Unruly or dangerous behaviour” offence). - Potential reduction in long‑term anchoring near Southern Strait of Georgia communities; vessels anchored over 14 days must leave the defined area (Marine Transportation Security Act, s.16 and Schedule). - Port authorities must consult local communities and publish summaries twice a year through advisory committees that include local Indigenous representatives (Canada Marine Act, s.33.1). - Workers (rail, port, marine, dangerous goods) - Possible need for transportation security clearances in rail settings; the minister may grant, refuse, suspend, or cancel clearances (Railway Safety Act, “Transportation Security Clearance”). - Screening officers and marine personnel face higher penalties for violations and can be suspended for security risks (Marine Transportation Security Act, ss.19.2, 20, 25). - For a coming thermal coal ban, the government must consult unions on worker protections such as alternative opportunities and pension bridging (Canada Marine Act, s.62(1.2)). - Businesses (importers, shippers, railways, marine operators, dangerous‑goods firms) - Importers must deliver goods to secure areas for customs exams when asked, on timelines set by regulation (Customs Act, “Secure area” requirement). - Anyone importing, offering for transport, handling, or transporting dangerous goods must register; firms making or servicing containers for dangerous goods must hold certificates of registration (Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, ss.6.11, 6.2). - New AMPs apply for dangerous‑goods violations; maximums are $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for organizations per violation, with due diligence as a defence (TDG Act, s.32.11(b), s.32.17(6)). - Rail companies must maintain security management systems; the minister can order corrective measures and strengthen penalties for non‑compliance (Railway Safety Act, s.32 updates; s.47.1(1.1)). - Marine operators face interim orders and emergency directions that can override regulations for up to 72 hours; penalties up to $1,000,000 (individual) and $2,000,000 (corporation) apply (Marine Transportation Security Act, ss.6.1, 17.4, 9, 11). - Vessels in the Southern Strait of Georgia area must move after 14 days at anchor; operators and vessels can be fined if they fail to comply after notice (Marine Transportation Security Act, s.16(1.1), s.17). - Port‑related transactions over CAD $10,000,000 must be notified to the Transport Minister and Competition Bureau (Canada Transportation Act, s.53.1(1.1)); this may add timelines and information requests. - Port authorities may face new fees, information‑sharing duties, and regulations governing marine traffic, mooring, anchorage, and activities of moored/anchored vessels (Canada Marine Act, s.62(1)(a.1), (a.2), (d.2)). - Local governments and Indigenous communities - Guaranteed seats in port advisory committees and regular consultations; port land‑use planning must be posted with public input windows (Canada Marine Act, ss.33.1, 48(4)-(7)). - Port business plans, quarterly financial reports, and annual reports on climate plans must be published (Canada Marine Act, ss.37.1, 39, 43.1–43.4). - Service users (rail passengers, port users) - Stronger rules against dangerous or unruly passenger behaviour; inspectors and officers gain clearer powers to enforce (Railway Safety Act, new prohibitions; enforcement updates). - Possible new port fees and operational rules as authorities manage traffic and security risks (Canada Marine Act, s.62; Marine Transportation Security Act, s.5(3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations are specified in the bill text. Many measures rely on future regulations and ministerial orders. Compliance and enforcement will require departmental resources (Data unavailable). - The bill authorizes or increases fees and penalties; these are potential revenues, not estimated in public documents (Data unavailable). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- TDG administrative monetary penalty (individual) | Up to $50,000 | Per violation | Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, s.32.11(b)(i) TDG administrative monetary penalty (organization) | Up to $250,000 | Per violation | TDG Act, s.32.11(b)(ii) Marine security offence fine (individual) | Up to $1,000,000 | Per offence (indictable); lower on summary | Marine Transportation Security Act, ss.5(4), 9, 11 Marine security offence fine (corporation) | Up to $2,000,000 | Per offence (indictable); lower on summary | MTS Act, ss.5(4), 9, 11 Port‑related violations (AMPS) | Up to $250,000 | Per violation | MTS Act, s.51(c); transitional ranges set until regs (Transitional Provisions) Regulatory fees (marine security) | Not specified | As set by regulation | MTS Act, s.5(3) Regulatory fees and data sharing (ports) | Not specified | As set by regulation | Canada Marine Act, s.62(1)(a.1)-(a.2), (d.2) ## Proponents' View - Improves safety and security with clear powers to act fast in emergencies and rising threats, including health risks, through interim orders and emergency directions (Marine Transportation Security Act, ss.6.1, 17.4). - Closes gaps in dangerous‑goods oversight by requiring universal registration and creating an AMP regime, which promotes compliance without lengthy prosecutions (TDG Act, ss.6.11, 32.11–32.26). - Modernizes rail safety by integrating “security” into safety, enabling corrective orders on security management systems, and prohibiting dangerous or unruly conduct that endangers passengers and staff (Railway Safety Act, updated definitions; s.32 orders; new prohibitions). - Reduces community impacts from long‑term anchoring by imposing a 14‑day limit in a sensitive B.C. area, with enforceable penalties (MTS Act, s.16(1.1) and Schedule). - Strengthens port governance and transparency: advisory committees with Indigenous participation, regular governance assessments, quarterly financials, and public climate plans and annual progress reports (Canada Marine Act, ss.33.1, 33.2, 37.1, 43.1–43.4). - Protects competition and national economic security by lowering the reporting threshold for port‑related transactions and enabling ministerial orders to prevent imminent harm to security or competition (Canada Transportation Act, s.53.1(1.1); Canada Marine Act, new ministerial order power). ## Opponents' View - Expands ministerial discretion with limited upfront oversight: interim orders are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act and can last up to three years with extensions, raising accountability concerns (Marine Transportation Security Act, s.6.1(2)-(4), (6)-(7)). - Compliance burdens may be high for small and mid‑sized firms: new registrations for dangerous goods, potential security clearances, reporting, and possible new port fees, with unclear timelines until regulations are issued (TDG Act, ss.6.11, 6.2; Canada Marine Act, s.62). - Use of automated systems and remote “entry” for compliance checks may raise due process and privacy concerns if safeguards are not clear, even with consent requirements for non‑public places (Canada Transportation Act, s.6.2(4), new “Means of telecommunication”). - The 14‑day anchorage limit could shift congestion to other coastal areas or ports, affecting supply chains and local communities not covered by the Schedule (Marine Transportation Security Act, s.16(1.1); Schedule). - High penalty ceilings (up to $2,000,000 for corporations) may deter investment or create litigation risk if guidelines are not clear; many penalties depend on future regulations (Marine Transportation Security Act, ss.5(4)-(5), 9, 11; TDG Act, s.32.11(b)). - Thermal coal loading prohibition by December 31, 2030 may affect jobs and regional economies tied to coal exports, despite required union consultations; the bill provides no direct funds for transition (Canada Marine Act, s.62(1.1)–(1.3)).

Tougher Sentences for Repeat Car Theft

## Summary This bill amends the Criminal Code to change how courts sentence people convicted of motor vehicle theft. It adds a 3‑year mandatory minimum prison term for a third or later conviction when the Crown proceeds by indictment, makes organized‑crime involvement a primary factor at sentencing, and bars conditional sentences (serving the sentence in the community) for indictable motor vehicle theft (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a), 333.1(3), 742.1(e)). It does not change police powers or create new programs. - Sets a 3‑year minimum prison term for a third or subsequent motor vehicle theft conviction when prosecuted by indictment (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a)). - Requires judges to give primary weight to any link to a criminal organization when sentencing for motor vehicle theft (Bill s. 333.1(3)). - Makes people convicted of indictable motor vehicle theft ineligible for a conditional sentence order (community‑based sentence) (Bill s. 742.1(e)). - No explicit coming‑into‑force clause; amendments take effect on Royal Assent (Bill text). - Preamble cites rising theft and organized‑crime involvement as the rationale (e.g., 34% increase since 2015; one vehicle stolen every six minutes in 2023) (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households and drivers - No new reporting, insurance, or recovery processes. The bill only changes sentencing after conviction (Bill text). - Any change in theft rates would depend on deterrence and enforcement, which the bill does not address directly. Data unavailable. - People accused or convicted of motor vehicle theft - Third or later conviction: If the Crown proceeds by indictment, the judge must impose at least 3 years in prison. The maximum remains 10 years (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a)). - First or second conviction: Penalties are unchanged. Maximum is up to 10 years on indictment or lower if the Crown proceeds summarily (existing s. 333.1). - Conditional sentences: If convicted on indictment, you cannot receive a conditional sentence (a community‑based sentence served outside jail). A jail sentence must be imposed. Conditional sentences may still be available if the Crown proceeds summarily, subject to other legal limits (Bill s. 742.1(e)). - Organized‑crime link: If the theft was for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, judges must give that fact primary weight when deciding the sentence (Bill s. 333.1(3)). - Prosecutors and courts - Election choice matters more: Proceeding by indictment triggers the 3‑year minimum for third‑or‑later offences and makes conditional sentences unavailable (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a), 742.1(e)). - Sentencing reasons must address organized‑crime involvement as a primary consideration in motor vehicle theft cases (Bill s. 333.1(3); existing s. 718.2 already lists this as aggravating in general). - Police and border agencies - No new enforcement powers or tools. Existing laws on investigation, seizure, and export controls are unchanged (Bill text). - Victims - No new restitution or victim‑support provisions. Existing avenues remain (Bill text). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations, grants, or fees are created by the bill (Bill text). - The 3‑year mandatory minimum for third‑or‑later indictable convictions would increase time in custody; no official cost estimate is provided. Data unavailable. - Making indictable motor vehicle theft ineligible for conditional sentences may shift some sentences from community to custody; no official cost estimate is provided. Data unavailable. - Custody placement depends on sentence length: sentences of 2 years or more are served federally; under 2 years are served provincially/territorially (existing law). The bill could therefore drive costs at both levels; no official breakdown. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Stronger penalties will deter repeat offenders and incapacitate those who persist in theft, addressing a rising crime trend (3‑year minimum for third‑or‑later offences) (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a); Preamble). - Organized‑crime involvement in vehicle theft is significant; making it a primary consideration ensures higher sentences in gang‑linked cases (Bill s. 333.1(3); Preamble). - Removing conditional sentences for indictable motor vehicle theft treats the offence as serious and ends community sentences for serious cases, improving public safety (Bill s. 742.1(e)). - The bill targets repeat and organized crime without changing first‑ or second‑offence maximums, preserving proportionality for less entrenched offenders (Bill s. 333.1). - The preamble’s figures (e.g., a 34% increase since 2015; one theft every six minutes in 2023; >12,000 incidents in Toronto in 2023) show urgency and justify stronger sentencing (Preamble). Underlying data sources are not evaluated in the bill; assumptions about deterrence remain (Preamble). ## Opponents' View - Mandatory minimums can reduce judicial discretion and have faced constitutional challenges in Canada; a 3‑year floor may invite litigation and case delays (risk flagged based on Supreme Court jurisprudence on mandatory minimums; Bill s. 333.1(1)(a)). - The minimum applies only when the Crown proceeds by indictment. This may lead to uneven outcomes across regions and cases, as prosecutors may elect summary proceedings to avoid a rigid sentence, affecting consistency (Bill s. 333.1(1)(a)). - Barring conditional sentences for indictable cases may increase jail populations for shorter sentences that would otherwise be served in the community, with costs shifted to provinces for sentences under 2 years and to the federal system for 2+ years (Bill s. 742.1(e)). Data on volumes and costs are unavailable. - Deterrence effects are uncertain; the bill provides no evidence that longer sentences reduce motor vehicle theft rates. The preamble’s statistics do not prove causation (Preamble). - “Primary consideration” for organized‑crime links duplicates an existing aggravating factor in the Criminal Code (s. 718.2). Elevating it only for motor vehicle theft may create appeals over how much weight is “primary” and reduce flexibility to weigh other factors (Bill s. 333.1(3); existing s. 718.2).

Canada Ends Spanking Defence in Law

## Summary This bill repeals Section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which has allowed parents and some caregivers to use “reasonable” physical force to correct a child. No new offence is created; the bill removes a legal defence that could be used in assault cases involving children. It takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Bill, s.1; Coming-into-force). - Ends the legal defence that permitted physical discipline of children “by way of correction” (Bill, s.1). - Applies nationwide to parents, people acting as parents, and teachers. - After repeal, physical discipline could be treated as assault (intentional force without consent) if reported and prosecuted. - Does not change provincial child protection laws or create new programs. - Takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent. ## What it means for you - Households (parents, guardians) - Physical discipline such as spanking, slapping, or other force used “to correct” a child would no longer have a special legal defence. You could face investigation or charges for assault (applying force without consent) if an incident is reported and pursued by authorities (Bill, s.1). - Non-corrective actions to keep a child safe in an emergency are not addressed by this bill. General Criminal Code defences not tied to “correction” are unchanged. Data on how these will be applied after repeal is unavailable. - Teachers and school staff - You would not be able to rely on Section 43 for any use of force “by way of correction.” The Supreme Court had already limited teachers to restraining or removing a student, not corporal punishment (SCC 2004, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (AG)). Repeal removes the correction defence entirely for all caregivers (Bill, s.1). - School policies that reference Section 43 will need legal review. Timeline: 30 days after Royal Assent. - Police, prosecutors, courts - In cases involving physical discipline of children, Section 43 would no longer be available as a justification. Decisions to investigate, charge, or prosecute would proceed under general assault provisions and prosecutorial discretion. No changes to offences or penalties are made by this bill (Bill, s.1). - Provinces and territories - Criminal law is federal. Child protection and education are provincial/territorial. This bill does not amend provincial laws but may prompt policy updates. Data on expected changes is unavailable. - Timeline - Effective on the 30th day after Royal Assent. Until then, current law applies (Coming-into-force). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill repeals a Criminal Code provision and includes no spending, staffing, or revenue measures (Bill, s.1; Coming-into-force). - No federal fiscal note or cost estimate identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Repeal gives children the same legal protection from assault as adults by removing a unique defence that applies only to force used against children (Bill, s.1). - Current law, even as narrowed by the Supreme Court (e.g., no objects, not to the head, generally ages 2–12), still permits some corporal punishment; repeal closes that gap and reduces confusion (SCC 2004). - Medical and child welfare groups report links between corporal punishment and negative outcomes (e.g., increased aggression and mental health problems), and advise against physical discipline; repeal supports those recommendations (Canadian Paediatric Society position statement, 2016/2019 update). - International human rights bodies have urged Canada to prohibit corporal punishment in all settings; repeal aligns with those recommendations (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations, 2012/2022). - Implementation is simple because it removes a defence and does not require new programs or funding (Bill, s.1). ## Opponents' View - Removal of Section 43 could criminalize parents for mild, non-injurious physical correction, even when done in good faith; opponents argue the Supreme Court’s limits already protect children while allowing minimal discretion (SCC 2004). - Risk of uneven enforcement and over-reporting, leading to investigations that strain families and social services; no data on the scale of potential impacts. Data unavailable. - Possible legal uncertainty for caregivers and teachers about the line between permitted safety restraint and prohibited “correction,” which could chill necessary interventions. Data unavailable. - Potential increase in police, court, and child welfare caseloads if reports rise after repeal; no government cost estimates provided. Data unavailable. - Cultural and community concerns that long-standing disciplinary practices could lead to disproportionate impacts on certain groups; evidence on distributional effects is limited. Data unavailable.

Create National School Food Framework

## Summary This bill orders the federal government to create a national framework for a school food program. The goal is to make sure all children in Canada can access healthy food at school. It does not start a program or spend money. It sets rules for how the framework must be built and when reports are due (National framework development (1); Contents (2); Report to Parliament (1); Coming into Force). - Requires the Minister of Employment and Social Development to develop the framework with Health Canada, provinces and territories, Indigenous governing bodies, and other stakeholders (National framework development (1)). - Sets content requirements: define “healthy” food, set minimum meals/snacks to offer, address cultural and regional needs, avoid stigma, support local and sustainable food, build on existing programs, and promote food education (Contents (2)(a)–(h)). - Orders a public report within 1 year after the Act takes effect, and a 5-year review after that (Report to Parliament (1); Review and report (1)). - Acknowledges provincial control over health and education and calls for collaboration (Preamble). - Takes effect 6 months after royal assent (Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households and students - No immediate change to school meals. The bill creates a plan, not a program (National framework development (1); Contents (2)). - Future framework must aim to offer at least certain meals or snacks in schools and to avoid stigma for users (Contents (2)(b), (e)). - The framework must reflect cultural diversity and regional diets (Contents (2)(c)). - Indigenous communities - The framework must take into account the rights and priorities of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, and include representatives of Indigenous governing bodies in consultations (Interpretation; National framework development (1); Contents (2)(d)). - Schools and school boards - You may be consulted during framework development (National framework development (1)). - Future standards could set minimum offerings and promote evidence-based food education. No obligations take effect under this bill alone (Contents (2)(b), (h)). - Provinces and territories - You will be consulted in developing the framework. The bill does not mandate provincial action or funding (National framework development (1); Preamble). - Food suppliers and local producers - The framework must foster use of local and sustainable food systems, which could affect future procurement if a program is later created (Contents (2)(f)). No immediate changes. - Taxpayers - No direct program spending or new taxes are authorized. The department must produce and publish reports on the framework and its 5-year review (Report to Parliament (1)–(2); Review and report (1)–(2)). - Timeline - Act takes effect 6 months after royal assent (Coming into Force). - Framework report due within 1 year after the Act takes effect, then tabled in Parliament and posted online within 10 days of tabling (Report to Parliament (1)–(2)). - Effectiveness review due within 5 years after the framework report is tabled, then posted online within 10 days of tabling (Review and report (1)–(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill includes no appropriations, transfers, or fees. It requires developing, tabling, and publishing reports (National framework development (1); Report to Parliament (1)–(2); Review and report (1)–(2)). - Administrative costs to consult stakeholders and prepare reports are not specified. Data unavailable. - Any future program costs would require separate decisions or legislation. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - A national framework can expand access beyond the current reach of school meal efforts, which now serve about 21% of school-aged children (Preamble). - National standards can reduce inequities by ensuring minimum offerings and avoiding stigma for participants (Contents (2)(b), (e); Preamble). - The framework will respect cultural diversity and Indigenous rights, improving relevance and uptake (Contents (2)(c), (d)). - Aligning with Canada’s Food Guide and evidence-based education may improve child nutrition and learning environments (Contents (2)(a), (h)). - Building on existing programs and using local, sustainable food can leverage current infrastructure and support local economies (Contents (2)(f), (g)). ## Opponents' View - Federal role may overlap with provincial jurisdiction in education and health, creating duplication or tension, even though the bill notes the need for collaboration (Preamble). - The bill sets expectations (minimum meals/snacks; standards) without committing funding, which could shift pressure to provinces, school boards, or charities later (Contents (2)(b)). Data unavailable. - Local and sustainable procurement goals may raise costs or strain supply in remote areas if later implemented as program rules (Contents (2)(f)). Data unavailable. - The bill provides process timelines but not outcome targets or enforcement, so results may be slow or uneven (Report to Parliament (1); Review and report (1)). - Anti-stigma aims are stated, but practical methods and accountability are left to future design, which may limit impact if not well executed (Contents (2)(e)).

Mandatory Minimums for Extortion, Arson Aggravates

## Summary This bill, the Protection against Extortion Act, changes sentencing rules for the crime of extortion in Canada’s Criminal Code. It sets mandatory minimum prison terms and adds arson as a factor that requires a tougher sentence. The maximum penalty remains life in prison (s.346(1.1)). - Sets a base mandatory minimum of 3 years for extortion (s.346(1.1)(b)). - Sets a 4-year minimum if a non‑restricted firearm is used (s.346(1.1)(a.1)). - Creates a higher minimum when a restricted/prohibited firearm is used or when the offence is linked to a criminal organization; the exact length is not shown in the provided text (s.346(1.1)(a)). - Requires judges to treat arson committed during extortion as an aggravating factor at sentencing (s.346(1.4); ss.433–435). - Preamble cites a rise in reported extortion and risks to new Canadians (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households and small businesses - If you are a victim of extortion, the person convicted will face at least 3 years in prison. If they used a non‑restricted firearm, at least 4 years. If they used a restricted/prohibited firearm or acted for/with a criminal organization, a higher minimum applies, but the exact number is not shown in the provided text (s.346(1.1)(a), (a.1), (b)). - If arson (setting a fire to cause damage) was part of the extortion, the judge must treat that as an aggravating factor and may increase the sentence (s.346(1.4); ss.433–435). - Workers and communities - Cases with a firearm or gang link will carry higher minimums, which can affect plea decisions and time served after conviction. Data unavailable. - Law enforcement and courts - Police and prosecutors will need to prove the type of firearm used and any link to a criminal organization to trigger higher minimums (s.346(1.1)(a), (a.1)). - Judges must apply mandatory minimums and, when arson is involved, must treat it as an aggravating factor (s.346(1.1); s.346(1.4)). - Corrections - Because the minimums are 3 years or more, those convicted will generally serve time in federal custody (sentences of 2 years or more). Data unavailable on capacity impacts. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or cost estimate is provided in the bill text. Data unavailable. - The bill includes no new appropriations or fees. It changes sentencing rules only (Part: Criminal Code amendments). - Longer mandatory minimums can increase incarceration time, which may raise correctional costs. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Responds to an increase in reported extortion and specific risks to new Canadians by setting firm penalties (Preamble). - Establishes clear mandatory minimums: 3 years in general, 4 years if a non‑restricted firearm is used, and a higher minimum when a restricted/prohibited firearm is used or when linked to a criminal organization (s.346(1.1)(a), (a.1), (b)). - Treats extortion involving arson more seriously by requiring judges to consider it an aggravating factor, reflecting heightened danger to life and property (s.346(1.4); Preamble). - Keeps life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, signaling the offence’s seriousness (s.346(1.1)). ## Opponents' View - Mandatory minimums reduce judicial discretion and can create harsh outcomes in unusual cases, since judges cannot go below 3 or 4 years once the conditions are met (s.346(1.1)(a), (a.1), (b)). - The bill text provided does not show the exact minimum term for restricted/prohibited firearms or criminal‑organization cases, limiting public clarity on the most severe category (s.346(1.1)(a)). - Longer mandatory minimums may increase prison populations and costs without clear evidence of reduced crime. Data unavailable. - The “criminal organization” trigger could apply to lower‑level associates, not just leaders, exposing them to the highest mandatory minimums (s.346(1.1)(a)). - Making arson an aggravating factor, in addition to any separate arson charge, may lead to higher combined sentences for the same course of conduct (s.346(1.4); ss.433–435).

Parliament to Appoint Visual Artist Laureate

## Summary This bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act to create a Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate as an officer of the Library of Parliament. It sets a 2‑year maximum term, a selection process led by the Speakers, a broad mandate to promote the arts, and specific powers to create works and sponsor exhibitions. It also corrects wording in the English version of the Act about the selection committee for the Parliamentary Poet Laureate. - Creates a new officer role: Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate within the Library of Parliament (Bill, (1)). - Selection by the Speakers from a list of three names proposed by a committee of cultural leaders; primary official language alternates between appointees; list must reflect Canada’s diversity (Bill, (2)). - Term up to two years; the Speakers may end the term early if acting together (Bill, (3)). - Mandate: promote the arts in Canada through Parliament; “arts” includes drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography, videography, filmmaking, and digital creations (Bill, (4), (6)). - Powers include producing art for state occasions, sponsoring art events and exhibitions, and advising the Parliamentary Librarian on cultural acquisitions (Bill, (5)(a)-(d)). - Corrects the English reference to the Canada Council for the Arts in the Poet Laureate selection clause (Bill, final clause amending s.75.1(2)). ## What it means for you - Households and visitors - Parliament will have a designated visual artist role whose job is to promote the arts through Parliament (Bill, (4)). - The Laureate can sponsor art events and exhibitions in connection with Parliament (Bill, (5)(b)). Access rules are not stated. - Artists and arts organizations - A new national role will commission or create works for state occasions at the request of either Speaker (Bill, (5)(a)). - The Laureate may sponsor artistic events, including exhibitions, which could involve artists and organizations (Bill, (5)(b)). The bill does not set grant programs or application processes. - Candidates for Laureate are proposed by a committee chaired by the Parliamentary Librarian and including leaders from the National Gallery of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, or their designates (Bill, (2)). - Parliamentarians and parliamentary staff - The Speakers select the Laureate from a confidential list of three names prepared by the selection committee (Bill, (2)). - Either Speaker may request works for occasions of state (Bill, (5)(a)). - The Laureate holds office for up to two years and serves at the pleasure of both Speakers acting together (Bill, (3)). - Library of Parliament - Gains an officer position dedicated to visual arts (Bill, (1)). - Receives advice from the Laureate on the Library’s collection and cultural acquisitions (Bill, (5)(c)). - Poet Laureate stakeholders - The bill corrects the English wording for the Poet Laureate selection committee’s reference to the Canada Council for the Arts; duties of the Poet Laureate are unchanged (Bill, amended s.75.1(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations, salaries, or budgets are stated in the bill text (Bill, (1), (5)). - No fees or revenue changes are stated. Data unavailable. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Salary and benefits for the Laureate | Data unavailable | Data unavailable | Bill, (1) Program costs for events, exhibitions, or commissions | Data unavailable | Data unavailable | Bill, (5)(a)-(b) Administrative and support costs within the Library of Parliament | Data unavailable | Data unavailable | Bill, (1), (5)(d) ## Proponents' View - Elevates visual arts in Parliament by creating a dedicated Laureate with a clear mandate to foster knowledge, enjoyment, awareness, and development of the arts (Bill, (4)). - Enables Parliament to commission and showcase Canadian art for state occasions and sponsor exhibitions, increasing public exposure to Canadian artists (Bill, (5)(a)-(b)). - Uses an expert selection process that draws on national cultural institutions, aiming for merit and diversity in nominations (Bill, (2)). - Ensures representation of both official languages over time by alternating the primary official language of appointees (Bill, (2)). - Strengthens the Library of Parliament’s cultural holdings through advice from a practicing visual artist (Bill, (5)(c)). ## Opponents' View - Creates a new officer role without defined costs or a budget cap; financial impact on the Library of Parliament is unspecified (Bill, (1), (5)). Assumes additional funding or reallocation may be needed; Data unavailable. - The mandate to “promote the arts” is broad, with no performance measures in the bill; results may be hard to assess (Bill, (4)). - Potential overlap with existing bodies (e.g., National Gallery of Canada, Canada Council for the Arts, Parliamentary Poet Laureate) could duplicate activities like exhibitions and public engagement (Bill, (2), (5)(b)-(c)). - Selection and removal by the Speakers, and service “at the pleasure” of both, may raise concerns about independence or politicization of the role (Bill, (2)-(3)). - The requirement to alternate the primary official language and to submit a list of three names reflecting diversity may limit candidate pools in some cycles, affecting flexibility in selection (Bill, (2)).

Sustainable Jobs Council and Action Plans

## Summary The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act (Bill C-50) creates a federal framework to plan, consult, and report on how Canada will grow the economy and support workers as it moves toward a net‑zero economy (net-zero means human‑made greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by removals) (Purpose). It sets up a 13‑member advisory council, requires a federal Sustainable Jobs Action Plan by December 31, 2025, and creates a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to coordinate work across departments. - Creates a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council with union, Indigenous, industry, environmental, and other representatives to advise government (Partnership Council — Establishment; Appointment (1.1)). - Requires a Sustainable Jobs Action Plan by December 31, 2025, and every 5 years after; progress reports due starting June 1, 2028 (Action Plan (1)-(3); Progress reports (1)-(3)). - Establishes a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to coordinate programs and serve as a contact point for workers and employers (Secretariat — Establishment; Role (2)(c.1)). - Mandates annual public advice from the Council and a public ministerial response within 120 days (Reports — Annual report; Minister’s response (1)-(2)). - Plans must outline measures such as skills and retraining, and may set labour conditions for access to federal incentives (Action Plan — Contents (3)(a), (b)). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct payments, taxes, or penalties are created by this Act. It sets processes and reporting only (entire Act; no offence or taxation provisions). - You will see public plans and progress updates on jobs and training for a net‑zero economy, starting in 2025 and 2028 (Action Plan (2)-(3); Progress reports (2)-(3)). - Workers and job seekers - No immediate new benefits. Future Action Plans must outline measures that support workers, including skills, training, and retraining (Action Plan — Contents (3)(b), (c.2)). - The Council includes 3 union representatives and must advise on how to address labour force impacts (Appointment (1.1)(b); Responsibilities (b)). - A federal Secretariat will act as a point of contact for programs and services related to sustainable jobs (Role (2)(c.1)). - Indigenous peoples - Three Council seats are reserved for Indigenous representatives; the Plan must identify and address data gaps related to Indigenous peoples (Appointment (1.1)(c); Action Plan — Contents (3)(c.1)). - The Minister must provide Indigenous peoples an opportunity to make submissions when preparing or amending Plans (Consultation (d)). - Businesses and employers - No new mandates take effect now. However, Action Plans must outline “conditions for accessing federal economic incentives in relation to labour,” which could shape eligibility for grants or tax measures in the future (Action Plan — Contents (3)(a)). - You can participate in consultations on Plans and may find a single federal contact point for related programs through the Secretariat (Consultation (d); Role (2)(c.1)). - Multi‑year Plans and progress reports may provide greater policy visibility on workforce and skills needs (Action Plan (1)-(3); Progress reports (1)-(3)). - Provinces, territories, and local governments - No new legal obligations are imposed. The Act encourages cooperation and allows you to make submissions to federal Plans (Consultation (d); Responsibilities (d.1)). - The Secretariat will coordinate specific federal‑provincial and federal‑territorial initiatives tied to the Plans (Role (2)(c)). - Timeline and transparency - Council annual advice: first report on a date set by the Minister, then by October 15 each year; Minister must publish within 30 days and respond within 120 days (Reports — Annual report (1)-(2); Report made public; Minister’s response (1)-(2)). - First Sustainable Jobs Action Plan due December 31, 2025; tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days; updated every 5 years, with mid‑cycle progress reports (Action Plan (1)-(2); Progress reports (1)-(2)). - The Act must be reviewed every 10 years (Review of Act (1)-(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal estimate or quantified appropriation is provided in the Act text. The bill carries a Royal Recommendation authorizing the use of public revenue (Recommendation). - The Act creates a part‑time, 13‑member Council with remuneration and travel expense reimbursement (Appointment (1); Remuneration and expenses). - It requires a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat within the federal government, which implies ongoing staffing and operating costs (Secretariat — Establishment; Role). - It mandates recurring Action Plans, annual Council reports, ministerial responses, and progress reports, which carry administrative costs (Reports; Action Plan; Progress reports). - The Act includes no taxes, fees, fines, or direct spending amounts in its text. Detailed funding, if any, would come through future budgets or programs referenced in Action Plans (Action Plan — Contents (3)). ## Proponents' View - Improves predictability for workers and businesses with fixed timelines for Plans (by December 31, 2025, then every 5 years) and progress reports (from June 1, 2028) (Action Plan (1)-(2); Progress reports (1)-(2)). - Ensures worker and Indigenous voices in federal advice through a 13‑member Council with 3 union, 3 Indigenous, and 3 industry seats, plus others, co‑chaired by union and industry (Appointment (1.1); Co‑chairs (3)). - Requires data‑driven planning, including summaries of labour market data and identification of data gaps, which can better target training and supports (Action Plan — Contents (3)(c)-(c.3)). - Creates a clear “front door” for information on programs via the Secretariat, which can reduce confusion for workers and employers (Role (2)(c.1)). - Allows aligning federal incentives with labour conditions to promote decent work and job quality in funded projects (Action Plan — Contents (3)(a)). ## Opponents' View - Focuses on process rather than immediate action; the first full Plan is not due until December 31, 2025, which could delay concrete supports (Action Plan (1)-(2)). - Open‑ended administrative costs with no fiscal cap or estimate; adds a new Secretariat and advisory Council with ongoing reporting duties (Recommendation; Remuneration and expenses; Secretariat — Establishment; Reports). - Risks duplication or friction with provincial programs and authorities; coordination requirements could slow implementation (Role (2)(c); Responsibilities (d.1)). - Potential new labour‑related conditions for access to federal incentives may add compliance burden, especially for small firms, and could affect investment decisions (Action Plan — Contents (3)(a)). - Limited enforcement: if milestones are missed, the Act requires progress reports and ministerial responses but sets no penalties or corrective mechanisms (Progress reports (3); Minister’s response (1)-(2)). - Council composition may not capture all regional or sector needs due to limited seats, which could shape advice unevenly (Appointment (1.1)).

Ban on replacement workers in federal strikes

## Summary Bill C-58 changes the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated workplaces. It bans most use of replacement workers during legal strikes and lockouts, adds narrow safety exceptions, and sets fines up to $100,000 per day. It also speeds up “maintenance of activities” decisions (work that must continue to protect public safety) and strengthens rules on reinstating workers after a dispute. - Bans employers from using most replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout, with limited exceptions (Bill s.94(4)–(8)). - Bars using employees in the striking unit during an all-out strike, except for safety-related maintenance of activities (Bill s.94(6)). - Sets fines up to $100,000 per day for violations; allows an administrative penalties scheme by regulation (Bill s.100.1, s.111.01). - Requires unions and employers to agree on maintenance of activities within 15 days after notice to bargain, or get a fast ruling from the Board (82-day limit) (Bill s.87.4(2)–(6.1)). - Requires reinstatement of striking/locked-out employees in preference to others when the dispute ends (Bill s.87.6). - In force 12 months after Royal Assent; Royal Assent was on June 20, 2024, so most provisions take effect June 20, 2025 (Coming-into-force clause). ## What it means for you - Households and service users - Essential safety-related services must continue during strikes or lockouts, either by agreement or Board order (Bill s.87.4(1)–(6.1)). - You may see service disruptions in federally regulated sectors (e.g., air, rail, ports, telecom, banking, postal). The law seeks to protect health and safety, not to keep full service operating (Canada Labour Program sector list; Bill s.87.4, s.94(7)). - When disputes end, normal staffing should resume faster because workers have reinstatement priority (Bill s.87.6). - Workers (federally regulated, unionized) - Your employer cannot use most replacement workers (new hires after notice to bargain, outside contractors, volunteers, students, or employees moved in after notice) to do your duties during a legal strike or lockout, with narrow safety exceptions (Bill s.94(4), s.94(7)–(8)). - In an all-out strike, the employer cannot assign your bargaining-unit colleagues to do struck work except for maintenance of activities required by the Code (Bill s.94(6), s.87.4). - If you were on legal strike or locked out, you must be reinstated ahead of any other person when the dispute ends (Bill s.87.6). - Timing: Rules apply starting June 20, 2025. The maintenance-of-activities rules apply to bargaining where notice to bargain is given on or after that date (Transitional, Bill). - Employers and managers (federally regulated) - Within 15 days after notice to bargain, you and the union must file a maintenance-of-activities agreement; if not, either side can apply to the Board, which must decide within 82 days (Bill s.87.4(2)–(6.1)). - During a legal strike/lockout, you cannot use: - Employees or managers hired after notice to bargain, - Contractors or other employers’ employees, - Employees transferred in or working at other locations, - Volunteers, students, or the public, except for narrow safety, property, or environmental threats and only if specific conditions are met (Bill s.94(4), s.94(7)). - You may continue using pre-existing contractors who were already doing substantially the same work before notice to bargain, but only in the same manner, extent, and circumstances as before (Bill s.94(5)). - Violations can draw Board orders and fines up to $100,000 per day; an administrative monetary penalties scheme may also apply once regulations are made (Bill s.99(1)(b.3)-(b.4), s.99.01, s.100.1, s.111.01). - Strike/lockout notices can only be given after the maintenance-of-activities agreement is filed or the Board has ruled (Bill s.87.2(4)). - Unions - You gain a clearer anti-replacement rule (purpose test removed) and can seek quick Board action on complaints tied to replacement-worker bans (Bill s.94(4)–(6), s.99.01). - You must negotiate and file a maintenance-of-activities agreement within 15 days after notice to bargain or apply to the Board (Bill s.87.4(2)–(6.1)). - Board decisions and orders are final, with narrow grounds for court review under the Federal Courts Act (Bill s.22(1)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key fiscal elements in the bill text: - No explicit appropriations or spending authorizations (Bill, passim). - Creates an offence with fines up to CAD $100,000 per day for each day of violation; actual revenues depend on enforcement outcomes (Bill s.100.1). - Authorizes an administrative monetary penalties scheme by regulation; penalty ranges and administration costs will depend on future regulations (Bill s.111.01). - Board process changes (time limits, powers) may affect administrative workloads; no official costing identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Limits strikebreaking, which they argue makes bargaining more balanced and can push parties to settle at the table rather than prolong disputes (Bill s.94(4)–(6)). - Removes the prior “purpose” test, closing a loophole that made enforcement difficult; focuses on the act of using replacements rather than proving intent (Bill s.94(4); repeal of s.94(2.1)). - Protects public safety with strict maintenance-of-activities rules and a faster decision timeline (82 days), reducing uncertainty before a strike or lockout (Bill s.87.4(2)–(6.1)). - Strong penalties (up to $100,000/day) and potential administrative penalties increase compliance and deter unlawful use of replacements (Bill s.100.1, s.111.01). - Ensures workers can return to their jobs when disputes end, supporting continuity of operations post-strike (Bill s.87.6). ## Opponents' View - Could extend the length or impact of strikes and lockouts in critical sectors by removing employers’ ability to maintain operations with temporary staff, affecting supply chains and consumers; effect size is uncertain and context-dependent. Data unavailable. - Safety exceptions are narrow and conditional; meeting them requires offering work first to striking workers and showing no other means exist, which may slow responses to emergencies (Bill s.94(7)). - May incentivize employers to outsource work to contractors before notice to bargain, to preserve some operational capacity during disputes under the “grandfathering” clause (Bill s.94(5)). - Imposes high penalties and strict rules that could trigger more litigation over who counts as a covered “contractor,” “dependent contractor,” or transferred employee, and over Board timelines (Bill s.94(4)–(5), s.99.01). - New 15-day deadline to settle maintenance-of-activities could front-load disputes and delay strike timelines if parties cannot agree, increasing Board caseload and creating bottlenecks (Bill s.87.4(2)–(6.1)).

Budget Brings New Taxes, Credits, Protections

## Summary The Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 (Bill C-69) puts many 2024 federal budget measures into law. It creates a new 15% global minimum tax on large multinationals, adds new clean‑economy tax credits, changes several income tax rules for people and businesses, updates excise taxes, and funds targeted programs (school food, Red Dress Alert). It also makes consumer, labour, housing, and crime‑prevention changes, and amends the federal impact assessment law. - Taxes: - New 15% Global Minimum Tax and a domestic top‑up tax (Part 2; Part 3). - New refundable credits for clean hydrogen and clean technology manufacturing; higher journalism labour credit; larger Home Buyers’ Plan; doubled volunteer first responder credits; CCB support after a child’s death (Part 1). - Targeted spending: - Up to $70.1 million for a National School Food Program in 2024‑2025; up to $1.3 million for a Red Dress Alert pilot (Part 4, Divisions 3, 26). - Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program (up to $5 billion in guarantees) (Part 4, Division 25). - Cost‑of‑living/consumer rules: - Telecom self‑serve cancellation, plan change rights, and fee limits (Part 4, Division 37). - Bank‑level “open banking” framework (Consumer‑Driven Banking Act) (Part 4, Division 16). - Housing: - Non‑Canadians home purchase ban extended two years; Underused Housing Tax filing relief and lower penalties (Part 4, Division 1; Part 3, Division 3). - Worker protections: - Presumption of employee status; “right to disconnect” policy requirement; clearer termination rules; EI seasonal extension to October 24, 2026 (Part 4, Divisions 21–23). - Crime/AML: - New offences and tools against auto theft; power to ban certain radio devices; stronger money‑laundering rules and info‑sharing (Part 4, Divisions 34–36). ## What it means for you - Households - School meals: Provinces can receive up to $70.1 million in 2024‑2025 toward a National School Food Program (actual access depends on provincial agreements) (Part 4, Division 3). - RESP/CLB: Government can open an RESP for CLB‑eligible children born after 2023 to pay the Canada Learning Bond; CLB eligibility window extended to age 30 (Part 4, Division 5). - Home buyers: Home Buyers’ Plan limit rises from $35,000 to $60,000; repayment start is deferred by three more years (Part 1(m)). - Child benefits: Canada Child Benefit continues up to six months after a child’s death for deaths after 2024 (Part 1, s.122.62(9)–(12)). - Volunteer credits: Volunteer firefighter and search‑and‑rescue credits effectively double (base amount $6,000) for 2024 and later (Part 1, s.118.06(2), s.118.07(2)). - CPP: New $5,000 death benefit in some cases; child benefit extended to part‑time students; other survivor and child‑benefit clarifications (Part 4, Division 14). - Housing rules: Non‑Canadians home purchase ban extended two years (Part 4, Division 1). Underused Housing Tax: filing exemptions expanded and minimum penalties reduced; new employee‑lodging exemption (Part 3, Division 3). - Prices: Higher federal excise duty on tobacco and vaping products (from April 17, 2024 for tobacco; July 1, 2024 for vaping) (Part 3, Division 2). - Telecom rights: Self‑serve cancellation/plan changes; notice before fixed‑term contracts end; ban on fees meant to discourage plan changes/cancellation (Part 4, Division 37). - Labour rights: Presumption you are an employee unless the employer proves otherwise; employers must have a policy on work‑related communications (“right to disconnect”) and follow clearer termination rules (Part 4, Divisions 21–22). - Workers and students - Student loan forgiveness expanded to more professions in underserved rural or remote communities (early childhood educators, dentists/hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, psychologists, personal support workers, physiotherapists) (Part 4, Division 4). - EI seasonal workers: Extra weeks measure extended to October 24, 2026 (Part 4, Division 23). - Small and medium‑sized businesses - New small‑business fuel‑charge “carbon” return per employee for CCPCs in designated provinces (amounts set by Finance; per‑employee payments via corporate return) (Part 1, new s.127.421). - Journalism credit: credit rate temporarily increased to 35% and per‑employee cap to $85,000 (Part 1, s.125.6). - Mineral exploration tax credit extended one year (Part 1). - AML compliance: Cheque‑cashing and more services fall under FINTRAC rules; new voluntary info‑sharing between reporting entities; higher public naming powers for violations (Part 4, Division 34). - Diversity disclosure: Banks, insurers, and trust/loan companies must disclose board/senior management diversity data (regulations to set details) (Part 4, Division 40). - Large businesses/multinationals - Global Minimum Tax (Pillar Two): 15% minimum effective tax rate, with complex rules, safe harbours, and domestic top‑up tax (Part 2; Part 3). - Clean economy credits: Refundable ITCs for clean hydrogen projects (with carbon‑intensity verification, recapture rules) and clean technology manufacturing (Part 1, ss.127.48, 127.49). - Consumers and public safety - Car theft: New Criminal Code offences for possessing/distributing electronic auto‑theft devices; higher penalties for theft with violence or for criminal organizations; enhanced proceeds‑of‑crime tools (Part 4, Division 35). - Radiocommunication: Minister can prohibit specified devices (e.g., those used to intercept or steal vehicles) (Part 4, Division 36). - Open banking: Consumer‑Driven Banking Act sets a framework to safely share your financial data among accredited entities; new Senior Deputy Commissioner to oversee; details to follow by regulation (Part 4, Division 16). - Environmental reviews - Impact Assessment Act amended to focus federal decisions on “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and to better coordinate with provinces/Indigenous processes; adds a two‑step significance/public‑interest decision structure (Part 4, Division 28). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. Key figures explicitly appropriated or capped in the bill: Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- National School Food Program (payments to provinces) | CAD $70.1 million | FY2024‑2025 (one‑year authority) | (Part 4, Division 3) Red Dress Alert engagement and pilot payments | Up to CAD $1.3 million | 2024‑2027 | (Part 4, Division 26) Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program (exposure cap) | Up to CAD $5.0 billion | Ongoing guarantee limit | (Part 4, Division 25) Borrowing Authority Act ceiling | Up to CAD $2.126 trillion (or $2.228 trillion, if coordinated clause applies) | Aggregate federal borrowing cap | (Part 4, Division 39, Subdivision B) CMHC total insured/guaranteed limit | $800 billion (permanent cap) | Ongoing limit | (Part 4, Division 2) Notes: - Many tax changes and refundable credits (clean hydrogen ITC, clean tech manufacturing ITC, journalism credit boost, small‑business carbon proceeds return, HBP increase) affect revenues and outlays, but the bill text does not include fiscal totals (Data unavailable). - Excise duty increases on tobacco/vaping raise revenue; no amount stated (Part 3, Division 2). - Global Minimum Tax and domestic top‑up tax likely raise revenue; no amount stated (Part 2; Part 3). ## Proponents' View - Fairer taxation: A 15% Global Minimum Tax and domestic top‑up reduce profit shifting by large multinationals and level the playing field (Part 2; Part 3). - Clean economy investment: Refundable credits for clean hydrogen and clean tech manufacturing de‑risk capital projects, tie support to carbon‑intensity performance, and include recapture if targets aren’t met (Part 1, ss.127.48, 127.49). - Cost‑of‑living and family support: Bigger Home Buyers’ Plan and extended CCB after a child’s death provide targeted relief (Part 1(m); s.122.62(9)-(12)). - Consumer protection: Telecom self‑serve cancellation and fee bans reduce bill shock and friction; open banking will let consumers safely share data to get better deals (Part 4, Divisions 37, 16). - Worker protections: Presumption of employee status and right‑to‑disconnect policy address misclassification and after‑hours pressures (Part 4, Divisions 21–22). - Housing measures: Extending the non‑resident purchase ban and easing Underused Housing Tax compliance focus rules on misuse while reducing red tape for ordinary owners (Part 4, Division 1; Part 3, Division 3). - Public safety and AML: New offences and device bans target auto theft; broader FINTRAC tools and info‑sharing help deter money laundering and sanctions evasion (Part 4, Divisions 35–36, 34). ## Opponents' View - Complexity and compliance burden: Pillar Two rules, new ITCs with detailed verification, AML expansions, and open‑banking oversight add significant legal and administrative complexity, especially for mid‑market firms (Part 2; Part 1, ss.127.48–.49; Part 4, Division 34; Division 16). - Fiscal risk and opacity: Major refundable tax credits (clean hydrogen/manufacturing, journalism) and per‑employee carbon proceeds returns lack cost figures in the bill; loan guarantees add contingent liabilities (Expenses; Part 4, Division 25). - Market distortions: Targeted industry credits may “pick winners,” crowd out private capital, and risk subsidizing projects that miss carbon‑intensity targets despite recapture (Part 1, s.127.48). - Borrowing headroom: Raising the borrowing authority ceiling increases federal debt capacity amid higher interest costs (Part 4, Division 39). - Privacy and security: Open‑banking and expanded AML info‑sharing raise data‑privacy concerns if technical standards and governance are weak (Part 4, Divisions 16, 34). - Housing impact: Extending the non‑resident home purchase ban may have limited effect on affordability while deterring some investment (Part 4, Division 1). - Labour rigidity: Presumption of employee status and right‑to‑disconnect policy design may raise compliance costs and reduce flexibility in some sectors (Part 4, Divisions 21–22).

Foreign Influence Registry and Tougher Security Powers

## Summary The Countering Foreign Interference Act (Bill C-70) updates national security, criminal, evidence, and transparency laws to deter covert foreign influence. It strengthens Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) powers, creates new criminal offences tied to foreign entities, changes court rules for handling secret information, and sets up a public registry for people acting under arrangements with foreign principals in political processes. - Requires people who enter certain arrangements with foreign states or their proxies to register within 14 days; creates a public registry and a new Commissioner (Part 4, ss. 5, 8–11). - Creates new offences for acting “at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with” a foreign entity, including covert political influence; penalties up to life imprisonment (Part 2, ss. 20.2–20.4). - Expands “sabotage” to cover essential infrastructure, with explicit protection for protest and labour action where there is no intent to cause specified harms; AG consent required to prosecute (Criminal Code ss. 52.1, 52.2; s. 52(5); s. 52.3). - Gives CSIS new tools (preservation and production orders, single‑attempt warrants; clarified foreign data collection from within Canada), and modernizes dataset rules with judicial and ministerial controls and a 5‑year parliamentary review (Part 1, e.g., ss. 20.3–20.8, 22.21; datasets ss. 11.03–11.25; Review). - Changes court processes to handle sensitive information, including appointing special counsel and limiting some appeals until after conviction (Part 3, Canada Evidence Act; e.g., s. 37.1(1.1), s. 38.09(1.1)). ## What it means for you - Households and individuals - If you act under an arrangement with a foreign principal to influence or communicate about Canadian political or governmental processes, you must register within 14 days and keep information updated. The registry is public (Part 4, ss. 5, 8). - Covert or deceptive conduct done at the direction of or in association with a foreign entity, to influence democratic rights or political/governmental processes, can lead to life imprisonment (Part 2, s. 20.4). - Intimidation, threats, or violence linked to a foreign entity, including some acts done outside Canada with a Canadian link, carry up to life imprisonment (Part 2, s. 20; s. 20.1). - Workers, protesters, and organizers - New “sabotage — essential infrastructure” offence targets intentional acts that make critical systems unsafe or inoperable. It protects strikes, work stoppages, and advocacy/protest/dissent where there is no intent to cause specified harms (Criminal Code s. 52.1(1), (3)–(5)). - Making or distributing a device (including software) for sabotage is an offence (Criminal Code s. 52.2). - Businesses, platforms, and record holders - You may receive a court‑ordered preservation order (keep data for up to 90 days) or a production order (produce specified records) from CSIS. You can apply to vary or revoke a production order within 14 days (Part 1, ss. 20.3–20.5). - After orders expire or are executed, you must destroy preserved materials not kept in the ordinary course of business (Part 1, s. 20.8). - There is protection from civil/criminal liability for voluntarily preserving or producing information to CSIS when not prohibited by law (Part 1, s. 20.7). - Public office holders and political actors (federal, provincial/territorial, municipal, and Indigenous) - Political processes at all levels are within scope of the new political interference offence and the registry regime (Part 2, s. 20.4(5); Part 4, s. 4). - Registry obligations for provincial/territorial, municipal, and Indigenous processes start on dates set by Cabinet, not before the main Part 4 start date (Part 4, Coming into Force). - Universities, school boards, and education sector - “Educational governance” (e.g., school boards, colleges, universities) is explicitly covered by the political interference offence (Part 2, s. 20.4(4)). - People in court proceedings - In some cases involving national security information, judges may hear evidence in private, appoint special counsel to protect a non‑government party’s interests, and limit disclosure to summaries. Appeals on certain secrecy rulings are allowed only after conviction unless exceptional circumstances exist (Part 3, e.g., s. 37.1(1.1); s. 38.09(1.1); special counsel provisions). - Timing - Most criminal and evidence changes take effect 60 days after Royal Assent (Part 2, Div. 3; Part 3, Div. 4). - The registry and Commissioner take effect on a date set by Cabinet; expansion to non‑federal processes also occurs by order (Part 4, Coming into Force). - CSIS Act changes take effect per the Act; the CSIS Act will face a 5‑year parliamentary review (Part 1, Parliamentary Review). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key known elements: - Royal Recommendation signals new spending authority is required, but the bill sets no dollar amounts (Preamble to Summary). - Creates a new Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner with staff, systems, and enforcement capacity (Part 4, ss. 9–14, 16–25). - Adds administrative monetary penalties and criminal fines that may generate revenue; amounts of AMPs to be set by regulation (Part 4, ss. 22–25). - Additional demands on CSIS, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal (e.g., orders, special counsel) with no quantified costs (Part 1; Part 3). - Fiscal note or PBO estimate: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Transparency and deterrence: A public registry of arrangements with foreign principals makes influence efforts visible and deters covert activity; registration within 14 days and ongoing updates are mandatory (Part 4, s. 5; s. 8). - Strong criminal tools: New offences cover committing crimes for foreign entities, deceptive conduct that harms Canadian interests, and political interference tied to foreign entities; penalties up to life imprisonment aim to raise the cost of foreign meddling (Part 2, ss. 20.2–20.4). - Protest safeguards: The essential‑infrastructure offence includes clear protections for advocacy, protest, and labour action where there is no intent to cause the specified harms; prosecutions require the Attorney General’s consent (Criminal Code s. 52.1(3)–(5); s. 52.3). - Faster, clearer intelligence powers with oversight: Preservation/production orders and single‑attempt warrants can secure evidence quickly; dataset rules require ministerial/judicial authorization, set retention limits, and delete sensitive information like health data and solicitor‑client privileged material (Part 1, ss. 11.1(1), 11.13, 11.17, 20.3–20.8). - Protecting secrets while maintaining fairness: Special counsel, summaries, and time‑limited appeals aim to prevent harmful disclosure of national security information while allowing cases to proceed (Part 3; e.g., special counsel; s. 37.1(1.1); s. 38.09(1.1)). ## Opponents' View - Overbreadth and chilling effects: The registry could capture benign or routine interactions, especially for diaspora groups, academics, or NGOs. Key scope details depend on future regulations (who is a “public office holder,” information to file), creating uncertainty and potential over‑compliance (Part 4, ss. 2, 5–6, 32). - Vague standards, severe penalties: Terms like “surreptitious or deceptive conduct” and “in association with” a foreign entity are broad. With penalties up to life imprisonment, there is a risk of sweeping in legitimate activity or uneven enforcement (Part 2, s. 20.3; s. 20.4). - Protest risk at critical sites: “Essential infrastructure” is defined broadly and can be expanded by regulation. Although there are protest and labour safeguards, disputes about intent could expose protesters to investigation (Criminal Code s. 52.1(2), (5), (6)). - Privacy and due process concerns: CSIS preservation/production orders and voluntary data requests may pressure firms to share information under confidentiality, with limited notice to affected individuals (Part 1, ss. 19(2.1), 20.3–20.7). - Fair trial concerns: Limiting some appeals on secrecy rulings until after conviction and allowing private, ex parte hearings — with special counsel not acting as the person’s lawyer — may constrain an accused’s ability to test the case against them (Part 3, s. 37.1(1.1); s. 38.09(1.1); special counsel role). - Implementation risk and cost: The new Commissioner, registry, and court processes require new systems, staff, and rules. Without published cost estimates or timelines for regulations, governments, businesses, and civil society face planning uncertainty (Part 4, ss. 9–14, 32; Coming into Force).

Canada Plans Environmental Justice Strategy

## Summary This bill requires the federal Minister of the Environment to create, publish, and update a national strategy to advance environmental justice and to assess, prevent, and address environmental racism. It sets timelines for the first strategy and for follow-up reports. It requires broad consultation, including with Indigenous communities, and alignment with the federal framework on Indigenous rights. - Requires a national strategy within 2 years of the Act coming into force, then public posting within 10 days of tabling (s.4(1)–(2)). - Mandates a study on links between race, income, and environmental risk, plus statistics on where environmental hazards are located (s.3(3)(a)). - Requires consultation with governments in Canada and Indigenous communities; strategy must align with the framework on Indigenous rights (s.3(2)). - Lists possible measures the strategy may include, such as law changes, community involvement, compensation, and health data collection (s.3(3)(b)). - Requires effectiveness reports every 5 years, with conclusions and recommendations (s.5). ## What it means for you - Households and communities - You may be able to share your experiences and priorities during consultations for the national strategy (s.3(2), s.3(3)(b)(ii)). Timing: during strategy development within the 2‑year window after the Act comes into force (s.4(1)). - You can expect a public strategy that includes data on environmental hazards and how they affect different groups (s.3(3)(a); s.4(2)). - The strategy may recommend compensation for people or communities harmed by environmental racism, but this Act does not itself provide compensation (s.3(3)(b)(iii)). - There is no direct order in this Act to clean up sites, move facilities, or change permits. Any concrete actions would depend on future measures in the strategy and other laws (s.3(3)(b)). - Indigenous peoples - The Minister must consult or cooperate with Indigenous communities, and the strategy must be consistent with the federal framework for recognizing and implementing Indigenous rights (s.3(2)). - You may have formal avenues to help shape data collection, proposed measures, and recommendations in the strategy (s.3(3)). - Community groups and NGOs - The strategy may include measures to involve community groups in environmental policy‑making (s.3(3)(b)(ii)). - You may be asked to provide local data, research, or community impact information for the required study (s.3(3)(a)). - Businesses and project proponents - No new regulations or permitting rules take effect under this Act. However, the strategy may propose changes to federal laws, policies, or programs in the future (s.3(3)(b)(i)). - Public reporting on hazard locations and community health outcomes may increase scrutiny of facilities near affected communities (s.3(3)(a), s.3(3)(b)(iv); s.4(2)). - Provinces, territories, and municipalities - You may be consulted and asked to share information to support the study and strategy (s.3(2), s.3(3)(a)). - The Act does not impose binding obligations on subnational governments; it focuses on a federal strategy and reporting (s.3–s.5). - All Canadians - You will be able to read the national strategy once tabled and posted, and later reviews of its effectiveness every 5 years (s.4–s.5). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or appropriation amounts in the bill text. The Act directs the Minister to develop, publish, and report on a strategy and to conduct a study and consultations (s.3–s.5). Data unavailable on associated administrative costs. - The Act does not authorize or fund compensation; it only lists compensation as a possible measure that the strategy may consider (s.3(3)(b)(iii)). Any future costs would depend on separate decisions. Data unavailable. - The frequency of required reporting is set (initial strategy within 2 years; effectiveness reports every 5 years), but no budget figures are provided (s.4–s.5). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - A national strategy will coordinate federal action and fill data gaps by requiring a study of how race and income relate to environmental risk and where hazards are located (s.3(3)(a)). - Mandated consultation and community involvement will give affected people a formal role in shaping policy and solutions (s.3(2); s.3(3)(b)(ii)). - Aligning the strategy with the framework on Indigenous rights supports better, rights‑consistent decision‑making (s.3(2)). - Regular 5‑year effectiveness reports create public accountability and a feedback loop to adjust the strategy (s.5). - Listing options such as legal amendments, compensation, and health data collection gives the strategy tools to address both past harms and ongoing risks (s.3(3)(b)(i), (iii), (iv)). ## Opponents' View - The Act sets process and study requirements but does not mandate concrete actions like cleanup, relocation, or permit changes, so results may be limited without later laws or funding (s.3(3)(b); s.4–s.5). - “Compensation” is only a possible measure; the Act provides no authority or budget for payments, which could create expectations without delivery (s.3(3)(b)(iii)). - Cross‑jurisdiction coordination with provinces, territories, and municipalities may slow implementation of the strategy’s recommendations, since the Act imposes no binding duties on them (s.3(2)). - The 2‑year timeline to produce the strategy could delay near‑term action on known hot spots, depending on how the Minister sequences work (s.4(1)). - Data collection and analysis demands may strain departmental and community capacity if not funded, risking incomplete or uneven coverage (s.3(3)(a); s.3(2)).

Clear Home Internet Speed Labels

## Summary This bill changes the Telecommunications Act to require internet providers to share clear, accurate information about home internet (fixed broadband) performance. It directs the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to hold public hearings and set the rules for what to measure, how to measure it, and how to present it to the public. - Requires providers to publish service quality metrics and “typical” download and upload speeds during peak hours (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)(a)-(b)). - Lets the CRTC define the metrics, testing methods, peak periods, and the format so the information is easy to find and understand (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(a)-(c),(f)). - Allows the CRTC to decide if some types of carriers or network technologies are excluded in whole or in part (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(d)-(e)). - Requires the CRTC to set compliance monitoring and enforcement measures so services match the published information (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(g)). - Applies to fixed broadband delivered by cable, fibre, wireless access, satellite, or similar systems (Bill, new s. 24.2(1),(3)(e)). ## What it means for you - Households and consumers - You will see typical download and upload speeds for peak times, not just “up to” speeds, when shopping for home internet. Timing depends on the CRTC setting the rules after public hearings (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)-(3)). - You will see other service quality metrics defined by the CRTC, presented in a simple, accessible format (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)(a),(c), 24.2(3)(f)). - If a provider’s service does not match the published information, the CRTC will have enforcement tools. The exact tools will be set after hearings (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(g)). - Businesses (internet providers/carriers) - You must measure and publish peak-period service quality and typical speeds using methods the CRTC defines, and in the format it requires (Bill, new s. 24.2(2), 24.2(3)(a)-(c),(f)). - You may face compliance monitoring and enforcement if your delivered service does not reflect your published metrics (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(g)). - Some carrier types or transmission systems may be excluded in whole or in part, depending on CRTC decisions (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(d)-(e)). - Rural and remote users - Satellite and fixed wireless services are covered unless the CRTC excludes them. You would see typical speeds for peak periods in your area once rules are in place (Bill, new s. 24.2(1)-(3)). - Local governments and community organizations - You can use standardized, public metrics to assess service quality in your area once the CRTC’s framework is in effect (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)-(3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct spending or appropriations are stated in the bill text (Bill, passim). - The CRTC must hold public hearings and set a framework. Administrative costs are likely but not specified. Data unavailable (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)). - Carriers will incur compliance costs to measure, report, and maintain data. Amounts will depend on CRTC’s final methods and scope. Data unavailable (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)-(3)). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Consumers need clear, comparable peak-period and “typical speed” data to make informed choices; this increases market transparency and competition (Preamble; Bill, new s. 24.2(2)(a)-(b), 24.2(3)(f)). - Standardized methods and representative sampling across regions reduce misleading claims and make offers comparable across providers and plans (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(a)-(b)). - Public hearings ensure the framework reflects real-world use and regional differences, including rural and remote contexts (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(a)-(c)). - Enforcement and monitoring help align advertised and delivered service, improving trust and reducing information gaps (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(g)). - Flexibility to exclude certain carrier types or technologies prevents undue burden where measurement is not practical, while keeping focus on the largest impacts (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(d)-(e)). ## Opponents' View - Compliance could raise costs for providers, especially smaller carriers, if measurement and reporting systems are complex or frequent. The bill does not cap scope or frequency (Bill, new s. 24.2(2)-(3)). - Time to benefit is uncertain. Consumers will not see new information until after CRTC hearings and rulemaking, with no timelines set in the bill (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)). - Risk of confusion if multiple metrics are required or if definitions of “peak periods” and “typical speeds” differ across regions or plan types (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(a)-(c),(f)). - Uneven coverage is possible if some carrier types or transmission systems are excluded, reducing comparability for users in areas with limited provider choice (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(d)-(e)). - Enforcement design is open-ended. Without clear, published penalties or remedies in the statute, effectiveness will depend on the CRTC’s future decisions (Bill, new s. 24.2(3)(g)).

Clearer Rules for Human Trafficking Exploitation

## Summary This bill changes how the Criminal Code defines “exploitation” for human trafficking crimes. It replaces the current test with a clearer list of actions that count as exploitation and repeals a related subsection. The changes apply to existing trafficking offences in sections 279.01 to 279.03 of the Code (Bill s.1). - Replaces the old “fear for safety” test with a “means-based” test focused on force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority (Bill s.1). - States that threats or coercion can relate to “any person,” not only the victim (Bill s.1). - Requires that the accused’s conduct caused the person to provide or offer labour or a service (Bill s.1). - Repeals subsection 279.04(2), which is no longer needed under the new definition (Bill s.2). - Does not change penalties in sections 279.01–279.03; it only changes the definition used to prove those crimes (Bill s.1). ## What it means for you - Households and victims - If someone makes you work or provide services using force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority, that is “exploitation” for trafficking, even if you did not say you feared for your safety (Bill s.1). - Threats to anyone (for example, a family member) can meet the definition, if they are used to make you work or provide services (Bill s.1). - Effective on Royal Assent, since the bill has no separate coming-into-force clause (Bill text). - Workers, including migrants and youth - Deceptive recruiting, fraud about job terms, or abuse of authority to make you work can meet the test for trafficking if it causes you to provide labour or services (Bill s.1). - The Crown would not need to prove you reasonably feared for your safety; it would need to prove the listed coercive means were used (Bill s.1). - Businesses and labour recruiters - Practices that involve deception about job conditions, threats (including to third parties), or abusing power over workers could trigger criminal liability for trafficking if they cause labour or services (Bill s.1). - Review recruiting and supervision practices to avoid conduct that could be seen as coercion, deception, or abuse of authority (Bill s.1). - Police, Crown, and courts - Investigations and prosecutions would focus on evidence of the listed means (force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, abuse of trust/power/authority) and causation, rather than proving the victim’s fear for safety (Bill s.1). - The repeal of subsection 279.04(2) removes a separate “factors to consider” list, because those factors now appear in the core definition (Bill s.2). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations or new programs in the bill text. It changes definitions in existing Criminal Code offences (Bill s.1–s.2). - Possible impacts on justice system workload (investigations, prosecutions, legal aid, courts): Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Clarifies and modernizes the definition of exploitation by listing concrete means—force, threats, coercion, deception, fraud, or abuse of trust, power, or authority—making it clearer what conduct is illegal (Bill s.1). - Removes the need to prove that a victim reasonably feared for their safety, which supporters say made cases harder to prosecute and placed a burden on victims (Bill s.1). - Confirms that threats or coercion aimed at “any person,” not just the victim, count toward exploitation, which captures common trafficking tactics like threats to family members (Bill s.1). - Keeps focus on causation: the accused’s conduct must cause the person to provide or offer labour or services, maintaining a clear link to trafficking activity (Bill s.1). - Repeals an overlapping subsection because the indicators it listed are now part of the definition, which may simplify jury instructions and court analysis (Bill s.2). ## Opponents' View - Argue that removing the “fear for safety” element could widen the offence and risk capturing severe labour disputes or misconduct that should be addressed by labour law, not criminal trafficking, depending on how courts apply the new test (Bill s.1). - Note that the phrase “any other similar act” is open-ended and may invite litigation over vagueness and the scope of the offence (Bill s.1). - Caution that “abuse of a position of trust, power or authority” is broad and could be unevenly applied without clear guidance, increasing enforcement discretion risks (Bill s.1). - Warn of potential increases in investigations and prosecutions without added resources, which could strain police, Crown, legal aid, and courts: Data unavailable. - Flag transitional risks as cases shift from a “fear-based” to a “means-based” standard, requiring training and updated practices to ensure consistent application (Bill s.1).

No GST/HST on Therapy and Counselling

## Summary This bill changes the federal Excise Tax Act to stop charging GST/HST on psychotherapy and mental health counselling services. It adds these services to the list of health services that are tax‑exempt and updates who counts as a “practitioner” (licensed professional) for this purpose. The change would start six months after royal assent (Coming into Force). - Removes GST/HST from psychotherapy and mental health counselling services when provided by licensed practitioners (Part II of Schedule V, s. 7(j.1)-(j.2); practitioner definition). - Extends the same tax treatment already given to psychological services to these two service types (Bill, Section 1; Schedule V). - Applies across Canada, including in HST provinces, because HST uses the federal GST base (Excise Tax Act framework). - Takes effect six months after the bill becomes law (Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households - If you pay out of pocket for psychotherapy or mental health counselling, the GST/HST line on your bill would be removed. Your savings equal the current GST or HST rate in your province (Bill, Part II of Schedule V, s. 7(j.1)-(j.2)). - The exemption applies only when the service is provided by a recognized practitioner under the Act (licensed or certified, per the updated “practitioner” definition) (Bill, Section 1). - Start date: six months after royal assent. Until then, current tax rules continue (Coming into Force). - Patients with insurance benefits - If your plan reimburses or pays providers directly, eligible claims would no longer include GST/HST on these services once in force. Your plan’s out‑of‑pocket share would reflect that change (Bill, Part II of Schedule V). - Providers (psychotherapists, mental health counsellors) - You would stop charging and collecting GST/HST on qualifying services once the change takes effect (Part II of Schedule V). - As with other exempt health services, you generally cannot claim GST/HST back on related business purchases (called input tax credits) for exempt supplies under existing GST/HST rules (Excise Tax Act, Schedule V framework). - You may need to update invoicing, point‑of‑sale systems, and engagement letters to reflect exempt status as of the in‑force date. - Other health professionals - Psychological services are already exempt; this bill adds psychotherapy and mental health counselling to the same list, reducing boundary issues when patients see different types of mental health providers (Bill, Section 1; Part II of Schedule V). - Governments - No change to provincial standalone sales taxes; the bill only amends the federal GST/HST law (Excise Tax Act scope). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points - No official fiscal note was provided with the bill text. Data unavailable. - By creating a GST/HST exemption, the bill would reduce federal GST revenue and the HST revenue shared with participating provinces. The size depends on the volume and price of eligible services. Data unavailable. - No appropriations or new spending authorities are included; the impact is forgone tax revenue only (Bill text). ## Proponents' View - Lowers out‑of‑pocket costs for people seeking care by removing GST/HST from psychotherapy and mental health counselling (Part II of Schedule V, s. 7(j.1)-(j.2)). - Aligns tax treatment with other regulated health services, including psychological services already listed as exempt, improving consistency across mental health care (Bill, Section 1; Schedule V). - Could reduce a financial barrier at the point of care for those without public or private coverage (Preamble; Schedule V amendment). - Administrative simplicity for patients and providers: no tax to calculate or remit on these services, matching existing practice for other exempt health services (Schedule V framework). - Six‑month implementation window gives CRA and providers time to update systems and guidance (Coming into Force). ## Opponents' View - Reduces federal and HST‑sharing provincial tax revenues; no official estimate is provided, creating budget uncertainty (Expenses: Data unavailable). - Variation in provincial regulation of “psychotherapy” and “mental health counselling” could cause uneven application and compliance disputes about who is a qualifying practitioner (Bill, Section 1; practitioner definition relies on licensure/certification). - As an exempt supply, providers generally cannot claim input tax credits on related business inputs, which may raise their unrecoverable costs and could be passed through in prices (Excise Tax Act, Schedule V rules on exempt supplies). - Boundary and enforcement risks: mixed services (e.g., coaching vs counselling) may require classification, adding audit and documentation burdens for providers and CRA (Part II of Schedule V). - The tax change alone may not improve access if provider availability and wait times remain the main constraints (Preamble notes access issues but does not add supply‑side measures).

More Ways to Vote, Stronger Election Rules

## Summary Bill C-65 (Electoral Participation Act) changes the Canada Elections Act to make voting easier, tighten rules on foreign influence and misinformation, modernize special ballots, and set stricter privacy rules for political parties. It also strengthens enforcement by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and requires studies on future reforms like a three-day polling period. - Adds two more days of advance voting (6 days total) and creates flexible voting options for remote areas and long-term care homes (Clauses 21, 29, 31–33). - Modernizes special ballots: electronic applications, on-campus voting offices, and drop-boxes for mailed ballots at polling places (Clauses 35, 37, 39). - Lets voters opt out of having their data shared with parties; requires parties to meet detailed privacy standards and bans sale of personal data (Clauses 19, 70–71). - Expands bans on foreign influence and on misinformation, including outside the election period; bans crypto, money orders, and prepaid cards as political contributions (Clauses 44–46, 61, 85). - Adjusts candidate nomination timelines and adds offences for false nomination information (Clauses 8–13). - Sets October 27, 2025 as the fixed election date if October 20, 2025 would otherwise apply (Clause 5). ## What it means for you - Households (voters) - More chances to vote early: advance polls will run Thursday to Tuesday, 11–6 days before election day, 9:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. (Clause 31). - If you cannot get to your assigned poll on election day or during advance polls, you can request a transfer to vote at another poll in your riding with a signed declaration (Clauses 28, 30). - You can apply for a mail-in (special) ballot electronically starting in the pre‑election period, and you may drop your special ballot envelope at any polling station in your riding on election day (Clauses 35, 37). - Writing only a party name on a special ballot will count if your intent is clear (Clauses 40–41). - You may ask Elections Canada to exclude your name, address, and identifier from lists given to parties for 5 years; Elections Canada will publish the number of such requests each year (Clause 19). - Students - Special-ballot voting offices may operate on post-secondary campuses for up to 12 hours/day from the 15th to the 8th day before election day (Clause 39). - You can apply and vote at these on-campus offices following special ballot procedures (Clause 39). - Seniors and people with disabilities - Returning officers can create polling divisions limited to a single long-term care or similar institution, with an on-site polling station open up to 12 total hours between the 13th day before election day and election day (Clause 21). - Residents of such institutions can vote or register without showing proof of residence; identity is still required (Clause 23). - The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) must develop and test voting technology for voters with disabilities, with possible use in elections if approved by Parliamentary committees for up to 6 years (Clause 3). - Candidates and nomination contestants - Nominations can open at the start of the pre‑election period for fixed‑date elections; the closing day for nominations moves to Saturday, the 23rd day before election day (Clauses 8–9). - Witness requirements for nomination signatures and related due-diligence rules are removed (Clause 7). - New offences apply for conveying or filing false or misleading information in nomination papers (Clause 13; offences referenced in Clause 82). - Political parties and associations - Parties must have a privacy policy that meets detailed content rules, including a named privacy officer, staff training, security safeguards, breach notification to affected individuals at real risk of significant harm, and a ban on selling personal information (Clauses 70–71). - The CEO must be satisfied the party’s privacy policy meets these rules for eligibility; parties must annually certify compliance (Clauses 68–69). - Rules requiring pre‑event online publication and notice to the CEO for regulated fundraising events are repealed; post‑event reporting remains, and the CEO will publish only the municipality and province of event locations (Clauses 62–63, 89). - Parties, candidates, and related entities cannot accept contributions in cryptoassets, money orders, or prepaid payment products; such contributions must be returned, destroyed, or converted and remitted (Clause 61). - Third-party advertisers and advocacy groups - Registration thresholds rise from $500 to $1,500 in regulated expenses (pre‑election and election periods) (Clauses 51, 56). - For regulated expenses, third parties must use only contributions from Canadian individuals; limited use of own funds is allowed if prior-year contributions were 10% or less of revenue, with financial statements filed (Clauses 54, 59). - Disclosure is tightened: names and addresses of Canadian contributors over $200 whose funds were used must be reported in interim and final returns (Clauses 52, 57, 60). - Third parties cannot accept contributions in cryptoassets, money orders, or prepaid products; return/destroy/convert rules apply (Clause 49). - Selling ad space to prohibited foreign actors for election or partisan ads is banned (Clause 44). - Broadcasters and online platforms - Using a broadcasting station outside Canada to influence voting is prohibited at any time, not just during the election period (Clause 46). - It is an offence to distribute material that impersonates Elections Canada, a party, or a candidate at any time and in any medium, with intent to mislead (Clause 79). - Election workers and administrators - Additional advance voting days; fewer separate advance ballot boxes required; new procedures for ballot custody in long-term care institutions; ballot boxes to collect special ballot envelopes at polls on election day (Clauses 20–21, 26, 31–33, 37). - Dates for list revisions and publications shift by one day (Clauses 16–18). - The CEO may recommend changing the fixed polling day to avoid conflicts; reasons must be published (Clause 6). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or appropriations are specified in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Operational changes that may affect Elections Canada’s workload include: - Two additional days of advance voting (Clause 31). Data unavailable. - Polling stations in long-term care institutions (Clause 21). Data unavailable. - Special ballot drop boxes at polling stations and on-campus special ballot offices (Clauses 37, 39). Data unavailable. - Expanded enforcement powers and annual privacy meetings (Clauses 71, 95–101). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves access to voting: - Six days of advance polls with uniform hours; flexible advance options for remote areas; transfer certificates to vote at another poll within the riding (Clauses 29–31; 28, 30). - On-site polls in long-term care and simplified residence proof for residents (Clauses 21, 23). - Student voting offices on campuses (Clause 39). - Modernizes mail-in voting: - Electronic applications; drop-off of special ballot envelopes at polling stations; party names allowed on special ballots to reflect voter intent (Clauses 35, 37, 40–41). - Strengthens protections against misinformation and interference: - New offences for false statements about where, when, and how to vote; impersonation offences apply anytime and across media; foreign influence rules expanded (Clauses 12, 79, 81; 44–46). - Enhances data privacy and transparency: - Voters can opt out of party list sharing for 5 years (Clause 19). - Parties must meet clear privacy standards, notify affected individuals of risky breaches, and cannot sell personal information (Clauses 70–71). - Reduces opaque funding: - Bans crypto, money orders, and prepaid cards as contributions; limits third-party regulated spending to Canadian individual contributions; higher registration threshold (Clauses 49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 61, 85). - Improves enforcement: - Commissioner gains tools to address attempts, conspiracies, and counseling offences; can seek injunctions and production orders; can coordinate with national security bodies (Clauses 95–101). ## Opponents' View - Higher administrative burden and costs: - More advance voting days, long-term care polls, and special ballot handling increase staffing and logistics needs; no cost estimates are provided (Clauses 21, 31, 37). Assumption noted. - Compliance load on civil society: - Third parties must track and use only Canadian individual contributions for regulated expenses and disclose contributor details over $200, which may strain smaller groups (Clauses 52, 54, 57, 59). - Reduced pre-event fundraising transparency: - Removing the requirement to publish and notify about regulated fundraising events before they happen may weaken public scrutiny, despite continued post-event reporting (Clauses 62–63, 89). - Speech and enforcement concerns: - Extending the ban on foreign broadcasting influence outside the election period and broad false-statement offences could raise free-expression and overreach issues if applied broadly (Clauses 46, 81). - Risks around assisted voting and residence proof: - Allowing any person to assist multiple voters and removing residence proof for long-term care residents may increase the risk of improper influence or error if safeguards are not robust (Clauses 23, 27, 43). - Party privacy regime design: - The Act makes the party privacy framework “national, uniform, exclusive and complete,” which may limit recourse under other regimes; effectiveness will depend on oversight and enforcement (Clause 70).

Crackdown on monopolies, mergers, and cartels

## Summary This bill, the Lowering Prices for Canadians Act, changes the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. It raises penalties for anti‑competitive conduct, tightens merger review, and creates bright‑line rules based on market share. It also extends the time to challenge mergers to three years and removes the Tribunal’s ability to award costs against the Crown. - Mergers that would create 30%–60% or 60%+ combined market share must be blocked or unwound unless the parties prove “substantial procompetitive outcomes” (new merger‑share orders; Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - Higher penalties for cartels and abuse of dominance: fines up to CAD $25,000,000 or three times the benefit, or 10% of worldwide revenues, plus up to 14 years in prison where applicable (s.45(2), s.49(1), s.79(3.1)). - “Excessive and unfair” pricing by dominant firms is listed as an anti‑competitive act; prohibition orders no longer require proof of substantial harm to competition (s.78(1)(k), s.79(1)). - The Competition Bureau gets clearer grounds to launch market studies (s.10(1)(b)(iv)). - The “efficiency defence” for mergers is repealed; efficiencies become a limited factor with conditions (s.93(1)(g.4), s.93(2)-(3), s.96 repealed; similar change for agreements under s.90.1). - Post‑merger challenge window increases from 1 year to 3 years (s.97). The Tribunal can no longer award costs against the Crown (Competition Tribunal Act s.8.1(3) repealed). ## What it means for you - Households - More mergers that create high market shares would be blocked or unwound unless firms prove benefits like lower prices, higher quality, more supply, higher wages, or more choice (new merger‑share orders; Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - The Bureau can challenge “excessive and unfair” prices by dominant firms (s.78(1)(k)). - The Bureau can launch market studies where this would provide insight into competition (s.10(1)(b)(iv)). - Workers - In reviewing high‑share mergers, the Tribunal may treat “increases in wages” as a procompetitive outcome the parties can prove (Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - Longer post‑merger review (3 years) means labor market effects of mergers can be challenged for a longer period (s.97). - Businesses - Mergers creating 60%+ combined market share must be blocked or unwound unless you prove substantial procompetitive outcomes. The same applies to 30%–60% share (new merger‑share orders; Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - There is also a presumption that significant increases in concentration mean a substantial lessening of competition, unless you disprove it (s.92(2)). - The stand‑alone “efficiency defence” is repealed. Efficiencies are only a factor and cannot be based only on income redistribution; the Tribunal must consider impacts like export gains or import substitution (s.93(1)(g.4), s.93(2)-(3), s.96 repealed). - Abuse‑of‑dominance penalties increase to up to $25,000,000 for a first order and up to $35,000,000 for subsequent orders, or up to three times the benefit, or 10% of worldwide revenues (s.79(3.1)). - Criminal cartel penalties increase: up to 14 years’ imprisonment and fines up to the greater of $25,000,000, three times the benefit, or 10% of worldwide revenues (s.45(2)); similar penalties for certain agreements by federal financial institutions (s.49(1)). - “Excessive and unfair” pricing by dominant firms can trigger orders (s.78(1)(k)). Prohibition orders under s.79(1) no longer require proof of substantial harm to competition. - The Bureau can review a completed merger for three years, increasing post‑closing risk (s.97). - If you prevail against the Crown at the Tribunal, costs cannot be awarded against the Crown (Competition Tribunal Act s.8.1(3) repealed). - Local governments - No new duties. Possible indirect effects through changes in supplier consolidation. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - The bill includes no direct appropriations. Data unavailable for incremental enforcement costs at the Competition Bureau or Tribunal. - Repealing the Tribunal’s ability to award costs against the Crown could reduce future Crown cost exposure in litigation; amount depends on case outcomes. Data unavailable. - Higher fines may increase federal revenues if cases succeed; amounts depend on enforcement and court findings. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Stronger merger rules will prevent high concentration that can raise prices and reduce choice; mandatory block/unwind at 30%–60% and 60%+ shares sets clear limits unless parties prove substantial consumer and worker benefits (new merger‑share orders; Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - Repealing the efficiency defence closes a loophole that allowed anti‑competitive mergers; efficiencies are now only a constrained factor and cannot rest on income transfers (s.93(1)(g.4), s.93(2)-(3), s.96 repealed). - Higher penalties will deter cartels and abuse of dominance: fines up to $25,000,000 or three times the benefit, or 10% of worldwide revenues, and up to 14 years’ imprisonment (s.45(2), s.79(3.1), s.49(1)). - Adding “excessive and unfair” pricing as an anti‑competitive act gives the Bureau a tool to address dominant‑firm price gouging (s.78(1)(k)). - A longer 3‑year window to challenge mergers strengthens oversight of harms that appear after closing (s.97). - Expanded grounds for market studies help identify barriers to competition and inform policy (s.10(1)(b)(iv)). ## Opponents' View - Bright‑line market‑share rules (30%–60% and 60%+) are blunt and may block or unwind mergers that could be efficient or necessary for scale, even in small or declining markets, unless firms meet a demanding proof standard (new merger‑share orders; Exception — procompetitive outcomes). - Shifting burdens and the presumption that higher concentration means substantial harm (s.92(2)) may chill investment and M&A, including procompetitive deals. - Repealing the efficiency defence reduces certainty for mergers that generate cost savings or innovation; limiting efficiencies to a factor, with restrictions, adds litigation risk (s.93(1)(g.4), s.93(2)-(3), s.96 repealed). - The new “excessive and unfair” pricing provision is vague; firms may face uncertainty about lawful pricing by dominant players (s.78(1)(k)). - Extending the review period to 3 years increases post‑closing uncertainty and integration costs (s.97). - Removing the Tribunal’s ability to award costs against the Crown could encourage weak cases and shift litigation costs to private parties even when they prevail (Competition Tribunal Act s.8.1(3) repealed).

Farm carbon charge exemptions for 8 years

## Summary Bill C-234 changes the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the on-farm fuel charge exemption. It adds marketable natural gas and propane to “qualifying farming fuel” and broadens what counts as “eligible farming machinery,” including equipment for heating or cooling barns/greenhouses and grain dryers. These expansions last for 8 years, unless Parliament postpones the end date (Coming into Force s.1–4). - Extends the farm fuel-charge exemption to marketable natural gas and propane for 8 years (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - Treats heating/cooling equipment for livestock housing and crop-growing buildings as eligible farming machinery (Bill s.1(1)). - Explicitly includes grain dryers as eligible during the 8-year period (Bill s.2). - After 8 years, the added provisions are repealed unless both Houses vote to postpone; postponements can be repeated (Coming into Force s.1–4). - No direct changes for non-farm uses of these fuels. ## What it means for you - Households - No direct change to home heating bills. The exemption applies only to on-farm uses in eligible machinery (Bill s.1(1), s.2, s.4). - Farmers - You would not pay the federal fuel charge (carbon price on fuels) on marketable natural gas (pipeline‑quality gas) and propane used in eligible farming machinery for 8 years after the Act takes effect (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - Eligible machinery includes equipment used to heat or cool buildings used to raise or house livestock or to grow crops, and includes grain dryers during the 8-year period (Bill s.1(1), s.2). - After 8 years, these added inclusions and the exemption for natural gas and propane end unless Parliament postpones the change by resolution of both Houses (Bill s.1(1.1), s.2.1, s.5; Coming into Force s.1–4). - Gasoline and light fuel oil remain qualifying farming fuels; this bill does not change that (Bill s.4–5). - Fuel suppliers and distributors - Sales of marketable natural gas and propane for eligible on-farm uses would be exempt from the federal fuel charge for 8 years once the Act comes into force (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - After 8 years, absent a parliamentary postponement, these sales return to being subject to the fuel charge (Bill s.5; Coming into Force s.1). - Local governments - No direct change. The bill targets on-farm fuel use definitions and exemptions (Bill s.1–5). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points - The bill reduces federal fuel charge revenues by exempting marketable natural gas and propane used in eligible farming machinery for 8 years (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - After 8 years, revenues would rise relative to the 8‑year period if the exemption ends as scheduled; Parliament may postpone the end date (Coming into Force s.1–4). - No official fiscal note identified as of October 20, 2025. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Reduces farm operating costs for grain drying and barn/greenhouse heating by removing the federal fuel charge from marketable natural gas and propane for 8 years (Bill s.1(1), s.2, s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - Targets core farm activities by limiting eligible machinery to equipment used to raise or house livestock or grow crops, and by naming grain dryers (Bill s.1(1), s.2). - Time-limited design provides temporary relief while cleaner technologies scale; Parliament can reassess and postpone the end date if needed (Coming into Force s.1–4). - Leaves non-farm uses unchanged, keeping the broader carbon pricing system intact for households and most businesses (Bill s.1–5). ## Opponents' View - Weakens the carbon price signal for a significant farm fuel use category for at least 8 years, which may slow fuel switching or efficiency upgrades (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). - Lowers federal fuel charge revenues from farm natural gas and propane, requiring adjustments elsewhere in the system or smaller proceeds from these sources (Bill s.4; Coming into Force s.1). Data unavailable. - Creates uneven treatment across sectors, since other commercial users of natural gas and propane continue to pay the fuel charge (Bill s.4–5). - Adds compliance and enforcement complexity, since authorities and suppliers must verify that exempt fuels are used in eligible machinery and buildings for qualifying farm purposes; the bill relies on existing Act mechanisms and does not add new enforcement detail (Bill s.1–5).

Canada Sanctions Hostage-Takers, Aids Families

## Summary This bill creates a new sanctions tool for Canada to respond when foreign states, entities, or individuals take Canadians hostage or detain them arbitrarily to pressure Canada. It lets the government freeze, seize, and forfeit assets in Canada, restrict dealings by Canadians anywhere, and use seized funds to compensate victims. It also requires support for families, allows monetary rewards for tips that free hostages, and changes immigration rules to reward cooperation and bar sanctioned offenders. - Allows orders that ban Canadians and Canadian companies worldwide from dealing with listed foreign actors and their property; lets Canada seize and forfeit their assets in Canada (Bill s.5, s.8). - Requires the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give families information, guidance, and help accessing services, and to facilitate communication when appropriate (Bill s.20). - Permits monetary rewards for critical information that leads to a hostage’s release and return (Bill s.21(2)). - Lets government pay compensation to victims or their estates from the net proceeds of forfeited assets (Bill s.9). - Makes people under these orders inadmissible to Canada and creates a path to permanent residence for foreign nationals who provide qualifying information, with limits (IRPA s.35(1)(e), s.25.1(1.1) as amended). - Sets penalties for violations, up to five years in prison or, on summary conviction, a fine up to CAD $25,000 and/or up to one year in prison (Bill s.15). ## What it means for you - Households - Families of hostages: You receive timely information, advice, and referrals to supports, including mental health resources; the Minister may help with communications when appropriate (Bill s.20). Timing is ongoing once cases arise. - Canadians and eligible protected persons abroad: Canada can target those responsible for hostage-taking or arbitrary detention that is used to pressure Canada (Bill s.5(2), s.2(2)). Direct consular services are not changed in the bill. Data unavailable on timelines for specific cases. - Workers and individuals with information - If you provide critical information that leads to a hostage’s release and repatriation, the Minister may pay you a monetary reward (amount and process not specified in the bill) (Bill s.21(2)). - If you are a foreign national who provides such critical information, you and your family members may be granted permanent residence or exemptions from immigration rules, unless inadmissible on security, human rights, or organized crime grounds (IRPA s.25.1(1.1) as amended). - Businesses and financial institutions - Canadian persons and Canadian corporations, anywhere in the world, must not deal in property of listed parties; must not provide or acquire services for their benefit; and must not make property available to them (Bill s.5(3)(a)-(e)). - Violations can lead to criminal penalties (up to five years imprisonment; or on summary conviction, fine up to CAD $25,000 and/or up to one year imprisonment) (Bill s.15). - You may apply for case-by-case or general permits to allow specified transactions that are otherwise restricted (Bill s.6). - The Minister may require you to provide information relevant to making or enforcing orders; you must comply in the form and timeline set by the Minister (Bill s.7). - If you act reasonably to comply with an order (for example, freezing an account you believe is subject to an order), you have civil immunity for those actions or omissions (Bill s.16). - The anti–money laundering law is amended to reference persons subject to these orders, supporting information disclosures related to them (PCMLTFA s.11.11(1)(b.4) as amended). - Local and provincial governments - If you hold or control property of a listed party in Canada, you must comply with seizure or restraint orders and any restrictions on dealings (Bill s.5(1)(b), s.5(3)). You may face information requests (Bill s.7). - People listed under an order (or mistakenly affected) - Listed foreign nationals, states, or entities can apply to end an order or to have property released; the Minister must decide within 90 days whether to recommend changes based on set criteria (Bill s.11–s.13). - A listed foreign national may request a certificate to exempt property needed for reasonable living expenses for them and their dependents; 90-day decision timeline (Bill s.14). - If your name matches a listed foreign national’s name but you are not that person, you can apply for a certificate; the Minister must decide within 45 days (Bill s.19). - If your property interests are affected by forfeiture, you can apply within 30 days for a court order recognizing your unaffected interest and payment of its value (Bill s.8(4)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note found. The bill contains no standing appropriation. Data unavailable. - Monetary rewards for critical information are authorized at the Minister’s discretion; no amounts or caps stated (Bill s.21(2)). Data unavailable. - Compensation to victims is limited to the net proceeds from the sale of forfeited property and is paid from the Proceeds Account; amounts depend on actual forfeitures (Bill s.9). Data unavailable. - Enforcement and administration will require departmental resources (orders, permits, information requests, court applications), but the bill provides no cost estimates. Data unavailable. - Seizure and disposal costs are charged to the owner of the property and are recoverable as a debt to the Crown (Bill s.18). Offsetting effect on federal costs: Data unavailable. - Potential fine revenue from offences is not estimated (Bill s.15). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Strengthens Canada’s leverage and deterrence by enabling broad restrictions on dealings, asset seizures, and forfeiture against state and non‑state actors tied to hostage-taking or arbitrary detention (Bill s.5, s.8). - Provides direct, legally required support to families, improving coordination and access to services during crises (Bill s.20). - Creates concrete incentives for cooperation through discretionary monetary rewards and immigration relief for foreign nationals who provide critical information leading to releases (Bill s.21(2); IRPA s.25.1(1.1) as amended). - Offers a path to compensate victims from net proceeds of forfeited assets, aligning consequences with harm (Bill s.9). - Increases accountability and transparency via mandatory tabling of each order in Parliament, annual reporting on implementation, and a 10‑year legislative review (Bill s.10, s.22–s.23). - Harmonizes with existing inadmissibility rules by adding those sanctioned under this Act to the list of people barred from entering Canada (IRPA s.35(1)(e) as amended). ## Opponents' View - Due process and discretion concerns: orders can be made when the Governor in Council is “of the opinion” conditions are met, with wide restrictions and property impacts; although courts oversee forfeiture and notice is required, critics may see risks of overreach or errors (Bill s.5(1)–s.5(3), s.8(1)–s.8(3)). - Compliance burden for Canadian businesses and financial institutions, including global screening, transaction blocking, responding to information demands, and managing permits, with criminal exposure for mistakes (Bill s.5(3), s.6–s.7, s.15). Costs: Data unavailable. - Overlap and complexity with other sanctions laws could create confusion for compliance and immigration inadmissibility, as the bill adds a parallel regime alongside the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Magnitsky Law) (IRPA s.35(1)(e) as amended). - Incentive risks: monetary rewards and immigration benefits may invite false or low‑quality tips; the bill sets no public criteria for reward amounts or vetting beyond the “critical information leading to release” standard (Bill s.21(2); IRPA s.25.1(1.1) as amended). - Victim compensation is limited to net proceeds of forfeited assets; if assets are not found or are minimal, compensation may be small or unavailable (Bill s.9). - International retaliation or escalation risks are possible when sanctioning foreign states or officials; the bill does not address mitigation strategies. Data unavailable.

Build Homes Faster or Lose Federal Funds

## Summary This bill ties some federal money for cities to homebuilding results and faster permits. It sets a national goal to grow housing completions by 15% each year and rewards or penalizes “high‑cost cities” based on how many homes they finish. It also offers a 100% GST rebate for new below‑market rental buildings for three years, speeds federal housing program approvals, and orders the sale of some federal land and buildings for housing use. - Links federal infrastructure transfers to each high‑cost city’s completions versus a 15%‑per‑year target; payments can go up or down (Bill s. 6(1)–(2)). - Sets aside up to CAD $100 million for cities that “greatly exceed” targets (Bill s. 7(1)). - Holds federal transit funds in trust until dense housing is built and occupied on “available land” around stations, as defined by regulation (Bill s. 8(1)–(2), s. 12(d)–(e)). - Requires high‑cost cities to avoid undue permit delays; average permit time over six months triggers a presumption of delay and possible funding cuts (Bill s. 10, s. 11). - Creates a 100% GST rebate for new rental projects with average rents below market; includes clawbacks if conditions are not met; repeals after three years (Bill s. 19, Repeal). - Sets a 60‑day average decision standard for federal housing funding applications and ties CMHC executive pay and bonuses to meeting targets and timelines (CMHC Act/National Housing Act amendments). ## What it means for you - Households and renters - More rental projects may aim for below‑market rent to qualify for the 100% GST rebate; the rebate ends three years after Royal Assent and can be clawed back if average rents are not below market for five continuous years (Bill s. 19(1)(iii.1), (3), (11), Repeal). - In listed high‑cost cities, missed targets or slow permits could reduce federal transfers for infrastructure or transit, which may affect city budgets and services (Bill s. 6(2), s. 10–11). - Homebuyers - No direct tax relief. Indirect effects depend on whether cities increase approvals and completions to meet the 15% annual growth target (Bill s. 5–6). - Builders, developers, and landlords - Can seek a full GST rebate on new rental buildings if the project’s average rent is below a regulated market benchmark for the area; must keep average rents below market for five years to avoid clawback; application deadlines apply (Bill s. 19(1), (7), (11)). - Federal housing program applications must be approved or rejected in an average of 60 days; this standard is backed by pay consequences for CMHC executives (National Housing Act, new s. 4 [60‑day standard]; CMHC Act s. 9(3)–(5), s. 13(2.2)–(2.4)). - Local governments (listed “high‑cost cities”) - Infrastructure and municipal GST‑rebate transfers are scaled by your completions relative to your 2023 base grown by 15% per year; the rule starts April 1, 2025 (Bill s. 6(2), Coming into Force). - You may receive extra federal payments if you greatly exceed targets (up to CAD $100 million total across municipalities) (Bill s. 7(1)). - Federal transit funding goes into a trust and is released only after a prescribed number of high‑density units are built and substantially occupied on all “available land” within a prescribed zone around stations (Bill s. 8(1)–(2)). - You must provide prescribed data and keep average permit decisions at or under six months to avoid presumed delay; the Minister can reduce funding proportionally and must give written reasons within 30 days (Bill s. 9–11). - Transit users - New housing is required around stations before federal transit funds are released; this could delay or phase project cash flows if housing does not materialize as prescribed (Bill s. 8(1)–(2)). - Federal property near you - The Minister must list all federal buildings and land, flag sites suitable for housing, and put at least 15% of buildings and all suitable land on the market within 12 months of tabling the report, with defined exceptions (e.g., parks, security) (Bill s. 21–22). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key fiscal elements from the bill: - Up to CAD $100 million in extra payments to cities that greatly exceed targets (Bill s. 7(1)). - 100% GST rebate for new below‑market rental housing for three years; total revenue loss depends on uptake; includes clawbacks in some cases (Bill s. 19, (10)–(11), Repeal). - Scaling of Canada Community‑Building Fund and municipal GST rebates up or down based on completions versus target; net effect across cities unknown (Bill s. 6(1)–(2)). - Reallocation plan for CAD $1.3 billion from the Housing Accelerator Fund to offset the above payments and rebates (Bill, Report on reallocation). - Transit funds held in trust until housing conditions are met; this affects timing, not the authorized amount (Bill s. 8(1)–(2)). - Possible one‑time revenues from sales of federal buildings and land; amounts and timing unknown (Bill s. 21–22). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Payments to over‑target cities | CAD $100,000,000 (cap) | Total cap (multi‑year) | Bill s. 7(1) GST rebate for new below‑market rentals | Data unavailable | 3‑year window; project‑based | Bill s. 19, Repeal Scaled CCBF/municipal GST transfers | Data unavailable (can increase or decrease) | Annual | Bill s. 6(1)–(2) Reallocation from Housing Accelerator Fund | CAD $1,300,000,000 | One‑time reallocation plan | Bill, Report on reallocation Transit funding trust mechanism | Data unavailable (timing shift) | Project‑based | Bill s. 8(1)–(2) Proceeds from federal property sales | Data unavailable | One‑time (timing set by s. 22) | Bill s. 21–22 Administration and reporting | Data unavailable | Ongoing | Bill s. 9–11, 14, 21–22 ## Proponents' View - Ties money to results. Scaling transfers by completions versus a 15%‑per‑year target pushes cities to approve more homes and reduce barriers (Bill s. 5–6). - Rewards strong performers. Up to CAD $100 million goes to municipalities that greatly exceed their share of the national target (Bill s. 7(1)). - Delivers transit‑oriented housing. Holding transit funds in trust until dense housing is built near stations aims to ensure ridership and value around federally funded projects (Bill s. 8(1)–(2)). - Cuts approval delays. A 60‑day federal decision standard, with executive pay at risk, is intended to speed federal support for new construction (National Housing Act, 60‑day standard; CMHC Act s. 9(3)–(5), s. 13(2.2)–(2.4)). - Lowers costs for affordable rentals. A 100% GST rebate for below‑market rental projects reduces project costs and is guarded by 5‑year below‑market requirements and clawbacks (Bill s. 19(1), (3), (11)). - Unlocks public land. A fast inventory and sale of at least 15% of federal buildings and all suitable land is meant to add sites for housing quickly, with environmental and security exceptions (Bill s. 21–22). ## Opponents' View - Penalizes cities for factors they do not control. Completions depend on market conditions, labour, materials, and interest rates. Only a few exceptions allow relief (national emergency, natural disaster, serious recession, war/terror) (Bill s. 6(3)). - Targets may be unrealistic. A 15% compound annual increase in completions can be hard to meet; missing it reduces key federal transfers, pressuring local budgets (Bill s. 6(2)). - Transit funding could be frozen. Requiring housing on “all available land” within prescribed zones before releasing funds may be impractical and delay projects; many details are left to regulation (Bill s. 8(2), s. 12(d)–(e)). - GST rebate is narrow and risky. The “below‑market” test depends on a regulatory benchmark; developers face a 5‑year clawback risk that could complicate financing (Bill s. 19(1)(iii.1), (11)). - Cuts to the Housing Accelerator Fund. Reallocating CAD $1.3 billion away from HAF could undermine ongoing municipal zoning and permit modernization efforts it funds (Bill, Report on reallocation). - Potential for rushed public asset sales. The 12‑month timeline to market properties could force sales at weak prices or of sites with limited housing potential; exceptions narrow what is “appropriate” (Bill s. 21–22). - Enforcement may have side effects. Tying CMHC executive pay and jobs to a 60‑day average may encourage quick denials or superficial reviews rather than sound decisions (CMHC Act s. 9(3)–(5), s. 13(2.2)–(2.4); National Housing Act 60‑day standard).

New human rights law tightens sanctions, media

## Summary This bill, the International Human Rights Act (Bill C-281), changes four federal laws to increase transparency on human rights, tighten sanctions follow-up, limit broadcast licences linked to certain foreign actors, and restrict investments tied to cluster munitions. It focuses on public reporting, accountability to Parliament, and closing finance and media access gaps. - Requires an annual public report by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Canada’s international human rights actions, including a list of “prisoners of conscience” Canada is working to free (DFATD Act s.10(4)-(6)). - Requires the Minister to publicly respond when a parliamentary committee recommends Magnitsky sanctions on a foreign national (Magnitsky Law — new response section). - Bars the CRTC from issuing or renewing broadcast licences for undertakings vulnerable to significant influence by foreign actors recognized by Parliament as having committed genocide or under Magnitsky/Special Economic Measures sanctions (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Prohibits providing loans or holding investments in entities involved with cluster munitions, with a 1-year grace period for pre-existing holdings (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.4; s.6(d.1); Transitional Provision). ## What it means for you - Households and investors - New ban on investing in, or lending to, entities known to be involved with cluster munitions; existing holdings or loans made before the in-force date have a 1-year grace period to adjust (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.6(d.1); Transitional Provision). - Mutual funds, pensions, and ETFs may adjust portfolios to comply, which could change fund composition and screening. Data unavailable on impacts to returns or fees. - Broadcasters and distributors - No new or renewed CRTC licence if the undertaking is vulnerable to significant influence by a foreign national/entity recognized by Parliament as having committed genocide or subject to Magnitsky or Special Economic Measures sanctions, including distributors of foreign programming (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Licence applicants may face added due diligence to show independence from such foreign influence (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Viewers and listeners - Some channels or services linked to sanctioned or genocidal actors may be denied licences or renewals, reducing availability in Canada (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Civil society and families of detainees - Annual report will list prisoners of conscience Canada is actively supporting, with names, detention details, and government actions, unless withholding is requested or needed for safety (DFATD Act s.10(4)(b), s.10(5)). - Government must describe its communications with families and consultations with civil society on human rights (DFATD Act s.10(4)(c)). - Parliament and advocacy groups - When a committee recommends Magnitsky sanctions, the Minister must state whether sanctions were made and explain why or why not; the response must be tabled and posted online within House/Senate timelines (Magnitsky Law — response, tabling, and posting provisions). - If Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, the response must still be posted online on time and tabled in the next session (Magnitsky Law — prorogation/dissolution clause). - Federal departments and regulators - Global Affairs Canada must produce a yearly human rights report and maintain web posting practices (DFATD Act s.10(4); Magnitsky Law posting clause). - CRTC must apply the new licensing bar tied to sanctioned/genocide-recognized foreign influence (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Enforcement bodies must apply the new cluster munitions investment/loan prohibitions (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.6(d.1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations are stated in the bill (Bill, all parts). - New administrative tasks: - Annual human rights report and web postings by Global Affairs Canada (DFATD Act s.10(4)-(6); Magnitsky Law posting clause). Data unavailable. - CRTC licensing reviews for foreign influence criteria (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). Data unavailable. - Compliance and enforcement related to the new investment/loan prohibitions (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.6(d.1)). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves transparency and accountability by requiring a public annual report on Canada’s human rights actions and detailed support for prisoners of conscience, including visits and trial monitoring (DFATD Act s.10(4)(a)-(b)). - Gives Parliament a clear trigger for executive response on Magnitsky sanctions recommendations, with deadlines and public posting, which can speed decisions and deter inaction (Magnitsky Law — response and posting provisions). - Limits access to Canada’s broadcasting system by foreign actors tied to genocide or under sanctions, reducing influence operations and protecting audiences (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Closes financing gaps by banning loans and investments tied to cluster munitions producers or facilitators, aligning with obligations under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and reducing Canadian financial complicity (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.4; s.6(d.1)). - Balances transparency with safety by allowing the Minister to withhold names or details when requested by families or when safety is at risk (DFATD Act s.10(5)). ## Opponents' View - Risk of harm or stigma from publishing prisoner names and details, even with a safety carve-out; decisions to include or exclude information may be contested (DFATD Act s.10(4)(b), s.10(5)). - “Vulnerable to being significantly influenced” is not defined; the broad standard may be hard to apply, invite litigation, or chill lawful broadcasting relationships, possibly affecting content diversity (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Potential impacts on freedom of expression and access to information if channels linked indirectly to sanctioned or genocide-recognized actors are denied licences, even when Canadian editorial controls exist (Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). - Compliance burden for financial institutions, pensions, and funds to identify and exit prohibited investments or loans; costs and sell-off timelines may be challenging, despite the 1-year grace period for pre-existing holdings (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act s.6(d.1); Transitional Provision). Data unavailable. - Administrative workload increases for Global Affairs Canada and the CRTC without dedicated funding in the bill; meeting reporting and posting timelines may strain resources (DFATD Act s.10(4); Magnitsky Law posting clause; Broadcasting Act s.22(1.1)). Data unavailable.

Provincial Reviews Can Replace Federal Assessments

## Summary This bill changes the federal Impact Assessment Act to let the federal government and a province sign an agreement so certain projects use the province’s assessment instead of the federal one. If an agreement and a federal order are in place, the federal Act will not apply to those projects. The bill sets rules for publishing draft agreements, taking public comments, how long agreements last, and how they can end (Bill, subsections (1)–(9)). - Exempts “designated projects” from the federal Act when they are assessed under a province’s process and a federal order covers that province (Bill, subsection (1)). - Requires a written federal–provincial agreement that says the province’s process is designed to assess likely effects, including effects under federal jurisdiction, and to identify mitigation measures (Bill, subsection (2)(a)-(b)). - Publishes draft agreements and allows a 60‑day period for anyone to comment or object; publishes a summary of how comments were handled (Bill, subsections (3)–(5)). - Publishes final agreements (Bill, subsection (6)). - Limits agreements to 5 years unless renewed; either party can end an agreement with 3 months’ notice; the federal order may be revoked if the agreement ends (Bill, subsections (7)–(9)). ## What it means for you - Households and community members - For covered provinces, public input on specific projects will occur through the province’s assessment process, not the federal one (Bill, subsection (1)). - You can comment on a draft federal–provincial agreement during a 60‑day window before it is signed; the Minister must publish how comments or objections were handled (Bill, subsections (3)–(5)). - Workers and project proponents - Where an agreement and order are in place, a designated project that is subject to the province’s assessment will not go through a separate federal assessment under the Impact Assessment Act (Bill, subsection (1)). - You will need to follow the province’s assessment rules and timelines for those projects. The bill does not set new timelines or standards beyond the two minimum design features in subsection (2) (Bill, subsection (2)). - Businesses - Potentially one assessment process instead of two, if your project is designated and also subject to the province’s process in a covered province (Bill, subsection (1)). - Agreements can expire after 5 years or be ended on 3 months’ notice. The bill does not state transition rules for projects that are mid‑assessment if an agreement ends (Bill, subsections (7)–(8)). - Indigenous governments and communities - For covered provinces, federal project‑level assessment steps under the Impact Assessment Act would not apply to designated projects assessed by the province. Participation would occur under the province’s system and any terms in the agreement. The bill does not mention Indigenous consultation or rights (Bill, subsections (1)–(2)). - Local governments and NGOs - Engagement for designated projects will shift to the province’s process in covered provinces. There is a single federal 60‑day comment period at the agreement stage, not for each project (Bill, subsections (3)–(5)). - Geographic scope - The bill applies to provinces. It does not mention territories (Bill, subsection (2)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill creates no direct appropriations, taxes, or fees in the text. It adds administrative duties to publish agreements, accept and summarize comments, and manage orders and renewals (Bill, subsections (3)–(6), (9)). Data unavailable on federal or provincial implementation costs. ## Proponents' View - Reduces duplication by allowing one assessment process when a province’s process is used and a federal order is in place (Bill, subsection (1)). - Maintains attention to federal matters because the provincial process must be designed to assess effects within federal jurisdiction and identify mitigation measures (Bill, subsection (2)(a)-(b)). - Improves transparency by requiring publication of draft and final agreements and a 60‑day public comment or objection period, with a published summary of how input was handled (Bill, subsections (3)–(6)). - Adds flexibility and accountability through 5‑year terms, renewal options, and the ability for either party to end an agreement on notice; orders can be revoked if an agreement ends (Bill, subsections (7)–(9)). - Respects provincial processes by recognizing provincial assessment systems that meet the stated design features (Bill, subsection (2)). ## Opponents' View - Sets minimal statutory criteria. It does not require the provincial process to match all factors or procedures in the federal Act beyond assessing likely effects (including federal‑jurisdiction effects) and identifying mitigation. This may allow uneven standards across provinces (Bill, subsection (2)(a)-(b)). - Shifts project‑level participation to provincial systems. Federal public participation requirements under the Impact Assessment Act would not apply to exempted projects, which could reduce or change public input depending on the province (Bill, subsection (1)). - Creates uncertainty. Agreements can end on 3 months’ notice and expire after 5 years. The bill does not state how projects already underway would be handled if an agreement ends (Bill, subsections (7)–(8)). - Limits federal oversight. The federal order is revoked at the Minister’s recommendation and is not automatically revoked when an agreement ends, which could create gaps or confusion (Bill, subsection (9)). - Omits explicit provisions on Indigenous consultation or rights, leaving those matters to provincial processes or the terms of each agreement (Bill, subsections (1)–(2)).

Mandatory Maximum Security for High-Risk Offenders

## Summary This bill changes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require automatic maximum-security classification for two groups: offenders designated as “dangerous offenders” under the Criminal Code and offenders convicted of more than one first‑degree murder. It also requires those inmates to be confined in a maximum‑security penitentiary or area and confirms they are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences. Transfer powers are limited so this rule cannot be bypassed. The bill would take effect 3 months after Royal Assent. - Automatic maximum-security classification for dangerous offenders and for persons with more than one first‑degree murder conviction (Bill s.30(1.1)). - Mandatory placement in a maximum‑security penitentiary or a maximum‑security area of a penitentiary (Bill s.28(2)). - Not eligible for unescorted temporary absences while classified maximum security (Bill s.115(3)). - Transfer authority is “subject to” the new rule, limiting moves that would undercut maximum‑security confinement (Bill s.29). - In force 3 months after Royal Assent (Coming into force). ## What it means for you - Households and the public - Certain high‑risk offenders would be held only in maximum security and would not receive unescorted temporary absences (Bill s.28(2), s.115(3)). Effective 3 months after Royal Assent. - Victims and families - For applicable cases, prison placement would be fixed at maximum security by law rather than by case‑by‑case assessment (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)). Effective 3 months after Royal Assent. - Unescorted temporary absences would not occur for these offenders (Bill s.115(3)). - Affected inmates (dangerous offenders; more than one first‑degree murder) - Security level: Automatically classified as maximum security, with no discretion provided in the bill to lower the classification later (Bill s.30(1.1)). - Placement: Must be confined in a maximum‑security penitentiary or area (Bill s.28(2)). - Movement: Not eligible for unescorted temporary absences (Bill s.115(3)). - Transfers: The Commissioner’s transfer power cannot be used in a way that conflicts with the mandatory maximum‑security rule (Bill s.29). - Start date: Rules apply starting 3 months after Royal Assent. - Other federal inmates (not in the two categories) - No change to how they are classified, placed, or considered for unescorted temporary absences under this bill (Bill s.30(1)). - Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) - CSC must assign maximum‑security classification to the specified groups and confine them in maximum‑security settings (Bill s.30(1.1), s.28(2)). - CSC and PBC would not process unescorted temporary absence applications for these inmates because they would be ineligible (Bill s.115(3)). - CSC transfer decisions must comply with the new mandatory classification (Bill s.29). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points: - No fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill. Data unavailable. - The bill creates a mandatory placement rule but does not authorize new spending or revenues. Data unavailable. - Potential impacts on CSC operating costs or capacity are not quantified in publicly released documents related to this bill. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Enhances public safety by ensuring that offenders deemed highest risk are held only in maximum security, consistent with the bill’s preamble referencing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (Preamble; Bill s.28(2), s.30(1.1)). - Establishes a clear, uniform national rule for two narrow offender groups, reducing inconsistent case‑by‑case outcomes (Bill s.30(1.1)). - Closes any gap by confirming ineligibility for unescorted temporary absences for these maximum‑security inmates (Bill s.115(3)). - Limits transfers that could place these offenders in lower‑security settings, reducing management discretion that could vary across institutions (Bill s.29, s.28(2)). - Provides a short implementation window so CSC can adjust operations before the rules take effect (Coming into force). ## Opponents' View - Removes individualized assessment for security placement and may conflict with the Act’s direction to provide “only the necessary restrictions,” by mandating maximum security regardless of personal risk change over time (Bill s.28(1), s.30(1.1)). - Creates a categorical rule with no path in the bill to reclassification, even if an inmate’s risk decreases, limiting incentives tied to progression through security levels (Bill s.30(1.1)). - Operational risk: Maximum‑security capacity and staffing could face pressure; the bill offers no implementation resources or flexibility. No official cost estimate is provided (Bill s.28(2); Expenses: Data unavailable). - Rehabilitation trade‑off: By making these inmates ineligible for unescorted temporary absences, the bill removes one tool the Act otherwise uses for gradual, structured community exposure (Bill s.115(3)).

15-Week EI Benefit for Adoption and Surrogacy

## Summary This bill adds a new 15-week Employment Insurance (EI) “attachment benefit” for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also extends job-protected parental leave under the Canada Labour Code for adoption cases to match the new EI weeks. The bill clarifies that surrogacy is treated like adoption for EI and federal labour leave purposes. - Creates a 15-week EI attachment benefit for adoption and surrogacy cases, on top of existing parental benefits (EI Act s. 22.1; s. 12(3)(a.1)). - Allows two parents to share these 15 weeks; each parent can claim up to 15 weeks, but combined total cannot exceed 15 (EI Act s. 22.1(7)-(8)). - Extends the benefit and leave windows if the child is hospitalized, up to set caps (EI Act s. 10(12); s. 22.1(3)-(4); Canada Labour Code s. 207.2(3)). - Offsets EI benefits if a province pays the parent for the same reason (EI Act s. 22.1(6); s. 152.041(7)). - Extends federal job-protected adoption leave to up to 80 weeks, with an 88-week family maximum when shared (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(1), (3.1)). ## What it means for you - Households - Adoptive and intended (surrogacy) parents can receive up to 15 additional weeks of EI benefits to support bonding, on top of parental benefits. The benefit window runs from the week the child is placed and ends 52 weeks later, with possible extensions for hospitalization (EI Act s. 22.1(2)-(4)). - If two parents claim, they can divide the 15 weeks between them. If they cannot agree, prescribed rules will divide the weeks (EI Act s. 22.1(7)-(8)). - If a province pays you for the same reason, your EI benefit may be reduced or eliminated (EI Act s. 22.1(6); s. 152.041(7)). - Workers (federally regulated employees) - Adoption leave under the Canada Labour Code increases to up to 80 weeks; the leave must be taken within 80 weeks after the child comes into your care (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(1), (2.01)). - For the same adoption, two employees can share leave up to a family total of 88 weeks; one employee cannot exceed 80 weeks (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(3.1)). - Surrogacy is treated as adoption for leave purposes (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(3.2)). - If your child is hospitalized and your employer refuses to interrupt leave as requested, your leave is extended by the hospitalization weeks (Canada Labour Code s. 207.2(3)). - Self-employed (who participate in EI special benefits) - A parallel 15-week attachment benefit is added for self-employed persons who are opted into EI special benefits, with the same timing rules, sharing rules with an employee parent, and provincial offset (EI Act s. 152.041; s. 152.05(14)-(15)). - Employers (federally regulated) - Must provide job-protected adoption leave up to 80 weeks and track aggregate limits when two employees share leave for the same child (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(1), (3.1)). - Existing rules on deferring a claimant’s waiting period are updated to coordinate when two parents claim different EI special benefits for the same child (EI Act s. 23(5)-(6)). - Timing - Applies to EI benefit periods that start on or after Royal Assent, or that have not ended before Royal Assent, but only for weeks of benefits that begin on or after that day (Transitional Provision). - Does not change existing maternity or parental benefit rules for birth parents (no explicit amendments beyond coordination and references). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points - No direct parliamentary appropriation in the bill; EI benefits are paid from the EI Operating Account funded by employer and employee premiums (structure unchanged). - EI will now pay up to 15 more weeks per adoption/surrogacy case, subject to offsets where provinces pay for the same reason (EI Act s. 22.1(6); s. 152.041(7)). - The Canada Labour Code leave change has no direct cash cost to the federal government but may affect employer staffing in federally regulated sectors (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1). - Fiscal notes or official costings: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves parity: Adoptive and intended (surrogacy) parents would receive a 15-week benefit comparable to the 15 weeks of EI maternity benefits for birth mothers (EI Act s. 12(3)(a.1); s. 22.1). - Supports early bonding and stability: A defined 15-week period focused on attachment, with extensions if a child is hospitalized, reflects adoption/surrogacy complexities (EI Act s. 22.1(2)-(4); s. 10(12)). - Clear rules and coordination: Sharing caps, waiting-period coordination, and provincial offsets reduce double payment and clarify family planning of leave (EI Act s. 22.1(6)-(8); s. 23(5)-(6); s. 152.05(14)-(15)). - Inclusive of surrogacy: Explicitly recognizes surrogacy under provincial law, aligning EI and labour leave with modern family forms (EI Act s. 6(1.1); Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(3.2)). - Job protection: Extending adoption leave under the Canada Labour Code to 80 weeks gives federally regulated workers time to use the new EI benefit without risking their jobs (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(1), (2.01), (3.1)). ## Opponents' View - Cost pressure on EI: Adding 15 weeks of benefits per adoption/surrogacy case could increase EI expenditures and, over time, contribute to higher EI premiums for workers and employers. No official cost estimate is provided in the bill (Data unavailable). - Administrative complexity: Verifying eligibility tied to provincial adoption/surrogacy laws and applying provincial offsets may slow claims and create uneven experiences across provinces (EI Act s. 6(1.1); s. 22.1(6)). - Uneven coverage by workplace: The extended job-protected leave applies only to federally regulated employers; most workers under provincial jurisdiction rely on provincial employment standards that this bill does not change (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1). - Narrow scope concerns: The benefit targets legal adoption and surrogacy placements; other caregivers (e.g., kinship or long-term foster placements without adoption) are not included, which may raise equity questions (EI Act s. 22.1(1)). - Employer impact: Longer potential absences in federally regulated sectors may increase scheduling and training costs, especially when two employees share extended adoption leave up to the 88-week family maximum (Canada Labour Code s. 206.1(3.1)).

March 11 recognized as Pandemic Observance Day

## Summary This bill designates March 11 of every year as “Pandemic Observance Day” across Canada. It is a commemorative day to remember those lost to COVID-19, recognize front-line workers, and reflect on the pandemic’s effects and preparedness for future pandemics (Preamble; Pandemic Observance Day section). The bill does not create a statutory holiday or require closures. - Designates March 11 as Pandemic Observance Day nationwide (Pandemic Observance Day section). - Recognizes the WHO’s March 11, 2020 pandemic declaration and Canada’s 2021 National Day of Observance (Preamble). - No changes to paid holidays, work schedules, or school calendars appear in the text. - No appropriations, fines, or mandates are included in the bill text. ## What it means for you - Households - March 11 becomes a named national observance. Daily life continues as normal unless your employer, school, or community chooses to mark the day. The bill does not require a day off (Pandemic Observance Day section). - Workers - No new statutory holiday or premium pay. The bill does not amend labour laws or require time off (bill text). - Businesses - No requirement to close, modify hours, or provide paid leave. Participation in observances is optional (bill text). - Schools and post-secondary institutions - No mandated closures or schedule changes in the bill. Any activities would be set by provinces, territories, or institutions (bill text). - Federal, provincial, and municipal governments - The day is officially recognized nationwide. The bill does not require programs or events, but it provides a fixed date for any voluntary commemorations (Pandemic Observance Day section). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct spending, appropriations, or revenue changes appear in the bill text. - The bill adds a named observance only and includes no mandates that create paid leave or service changes (bill text). - Any costs for ceremonies, communications, or educational materials would be at the discretion of governments or organizations; Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Creates a clear, annual moment to commemorate losses and front-line efforts, aligning with March 11, 2020 (WHO declaration) and Canada’s 2021 National Day of Observance (Preamble). - Acknowledges unequal impacts on vulnerable and historically disadvantaged groups, which proponents argue supports ongoing equity-focused reflection (Preamble). - Establishes a simple, low-cost tool to promote public awareness and preparedness for future pandemics (Preamble; Pandemic Observance Day section). - Provides a consistent date that governments and communities can use to plan voluntary education and remembrance activities (Pandemic Observance Day section). ## Opponents' View - Symbolic only: does not fund preparedness, health services, or support for affected communities; therefore limited practical impact (bill text). - Risk of public confusion about whether March 11 is a paid holiday or requires closures, since the bill “designates” a day without changing labour laws (Pandemic Observance Day section; bill text). - Potential for diffuse, uncoordinated observances that dilute attention without measurable outcomes, since no implementation framework is included (bill text). - Opportunity cost: time and attention on a commemorative day could displace focus from policy measures with direct effects, such as surveillance, stockpiles, or workforce capacity (bill text).

Indigenous-Led National Reconciliation Council Created

## Summary This bill sets up a permanent, independent, Indigenous‑led not‑for‑profit called the National Council for Reconciliation. The Council will track and report on progress toward reconciliation, develop a national action plan, and educate the public. It also requires the federal government to share information, report each year on key indicators, and have the Prime Minister respond publicly. The Act takes effect on a date set by the Governor in Council (Coming into Force). - Creates an Indigenous‑led Council (not a government agency) to monitor, evaluate, and report on reconciliation (Purpose; Functions). - Requires a federal data‑sharing protocol within 6 months of incorporation; Council can seek a Federal Court order if the Minister does not comply (Protocol). - Sets annual reporting by the Minister on child welfare, education, health, safety, and justice gaps, and a Prime Minister response within 60 days (Report of Minister; Report of Council; Government response). - Directs the Council to develop a multi‑year National Action Plan, do research, advise governments, and run public education (Functions (c), (e), (f)). - Ensures the Council does not replace consultation with Indigenous rights holders and does not affect existing bilateral mechanisms (For greater certainty; Bilateral mechanisms). - Makes the Council a “qualified donee” (can issue tax receipts for donations under the Income Tax Act) and requires audited financial reporting (Qualified donee; Financial Report). ## What it means for you - Households - You will get public annual reports on the state of reconciliation and the Government of Canada’s plans to advance it (Report of Council; Government response). - You may see new public education on Indigenous histories and realities (Functions (c)(iii), (f)). - Donations to the Council will be eligible for tax receipts because it is a qualified donee (Qualified donee). - Indigenous peoples and communities - The Council is Indigenous‑led; at least 2/3 of directors must be Indigenous, with seats nominated by AFN, ITK, MNC, and NWAC, and at least 2 directors from the territories (Nominations; Indigenous persons; Residents of territories). - The Council must include diverse representation “to the extent possible,” including elders, survivors, youth, gender‑diverse persons, regions, and French‑speaking Indigenous persons (Representativeness). - Translation and interpretation services must be available to support Indigenous language rights in the Council’s work (Functions (i)). - The Council will not represent Indigenous governing bodies, and engagement with it does not discharge the duty to consult rights holders (For greater certainty). - Workers and businesses - No new legal duties are placed on private workers or businesses. The Council may encourage partnerships and dialogue on reconciliation in the private sector (Functions (g)), but participation is voluntary under this Act. - Federal government (ministries, agencies, Crown‑Indigenous Relations) - Within 6 months of incorporation, the Minister must create an information‑sharing protocol with the Council that lets it receive all information it judges relevant “to the extent possible” (Protocol). - Each year, by about September 30 (six months after March 31), the Minister must submit comparisons and progress data on child welfare, education funding, education and income outcomes, health indicators, youth custody, victimization, and overrepresentation in justice and corrections (Report of Minister (a)–(g)). - The Minister must table the Council’s annual report in Parliament; within 60 days, the Prime Minister must publish an annual report on the state of Indigenous peoples with plans for advancing reconciliation (Report of Council; Government response). - Provinces, territories, municipalities - The Council will monitor and report on reconciliation “across all levels of government,” but this Act does not impose reporting duties on provincial, territorial, or municipal governments (Functions (b); Definitions — governments). - Existing bilateral mechanisms between Canada and Indigenous governing bodies are not changed by this Act (Bilateral mechanisms). - Governance and transparency - The board has 9–13 directors; terms up to 4 years, max two terms; directors elected by special resolution of members; knowledge and experience on Indigenous matters required (Composition; Term of office; Election; Knowledge and experience). - The Council must publish audited comparative financial statements and details on its investments within 6 months after each financial year (Financial Report). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points - No explicit appropriation in the bill (Data unavailable). - The Council is a qualified donee under the Income Tax Act, allowing it to receive tax‑receipted donations and eligible government grants under existing authorities (Qualified donee). - Federal departments must produce and share data under an information‑sharing protocol and prepare annual indicators reports; administrative costs are not estimated (Protocol; Report of Minister). - The Council must fund an annual audit and publish financials; costs borne by the Council (Financial Report). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Direct federal appropriation to Council | Data unavailable | N/A | Bill contains no appropriation Federal departmental reporting/admin costs | Data unavailable | Annual | Report of Minister; Protocol Council operating budget (donations/grants) | Data unavailable | Annual | Qualified donee; Financial Report ## Proponents' View - Creates an independent, Indigenous‑led body to track reconciliation across society and governments, addressing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Call to Action 53 (Preamble; Purpose; Functions). - Strengthens accountability with annual reporting by the Minister on key outcome gaps and a mandatory Prime Minister response within 60 days (Report of Minister; Government response). - Establishes a multi‑year National Action Plan, with research, policy development, and public education to drive practical change (Functions (c)). - Ensures work aligns with Indigenous rights and a rights‑based approach to self‑determination (Functions (b.1)). - Protects the duty to consult by stating engagement with the Council does not replace consultation with rights holders (For greater certainty (b)). - Builds transparency through required audited financial statements and public disclosure of investment activities (Financial Report). ## Opponents' View - No dedicated funding is set in the Act; reliance on donations or future agreements may limit capacity and stability (Qualified donee; no appropriation specified). - The Minister co‑selects the first board with the transitional committee, which could raise concerns about perceived independence at start‑up (First board of directors). - The Council’s powers are advisory and reporting‑based; the Prime Minister must respond with a report, but there is no obligation to implement recommendations (Report of Council; Government response). - The information‑sharing protocol requires “to the extent possible” access; its scope is undefined in the Act, which may lead to delays or disputes over data (Protocol (1)–(3)). - The Council must monitor progress “across all levels of government,” but the Act imposes no reporting duties on provinces or municipalities, which may create data gaps (Functions (b); Definitions — governments).

New Ojibway National Urban Park in Windsor

## Summary This bill amends the Canada National Parks Act to create the Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada in Windsor, Ontario. It adds seven mapped land parcels to Schedule 1 of the Act, which brings them under federal park protections and management. The bill does not include funding, land transfers, or governance details. - Establishes a new national urban park by listing seven parcels totaling about 323.4 hectares (Bill, Schedule 1, Part 5, paras (a)-(g)). - Brings the area under the Canada National Parks Act, which puts ecological integrity first in management (Canada National Parks Act, s.8(2)). - Triggers a requirement for a park management plan within 5 years, with public input and tabling in Parliament (Canada National Parks Act, s.11). - Does not authorize spending, set fees, or specify how current landholders transfer lands to the federal government (Bill text). - Identifies boundaries that reference Ojibway Shores and a shared boundary with Black Oak Heritage Park (Bill, Schedule 1, paras (a)-(b)). ## What it means for you - Households and visitors - The mapped lands become a federal park managed by Parks Canada. Park rules under the Act apply, such as protecting plants, wildlife, and natural features (Canada National Parks Act, s.4, s.8(2)). - A formal management plan must be developed within 5 years, with public consultation, which can shape trail access, programming, and permitted activities (Canada National Parks Act, s.11). - Local governments - Day-to-day land-use control for the park area shifts to Parks Canada once lands are under federal administration. Municipal bylaws no longer set uses inside park boundaries (Canada National Parks Act). - The bill does not address municipal servicing, road access, or payments in lieu of taxes. Data unavailable. - Businesses and developers - New industrial or resource-extraction uses inside the park would be prohibited under the Act’s conservation-first mandate (Canada National Parks Act, s.8(2)). - Any commercial services in the park (for example, concessions or tours) would require Parks Canada authorization. The bill itself does not create or guarantee such opportunities (Bill text). - Current landholders - The bill lists boundaries but does not set out how ownership or administration will transfer to the federal government, nor does it provide compensation terms. Separate agreements or processes would be needed (Bill, Schedule 1; Bill text). - Indigenous communities - The bill does not set co-governance or specific Indigenous rights provisions. Any recognition or harvesting arrangements would need to follow existing law and future park planning. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriation or spending authority is included in the bill (Bill text). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - Operating and capital costs to manage the park would fall to Parks Canada once lands are under federal administration; the bill does not provide amounts. Data unavailable. - Any land acquisition or transfer costs are not specified in the bill. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Provides durable, legislated protection by placing the area under the Canada National Parks Act, which makes ecological integrity the first management priority (Canada National Parks Act, s.8(2)). - Clearly defines seven parcels, about 323.4 hectares, including areas adjoining Ojibway Shores and Black Oak Heritage Park, creating a connected protected space in an urban setting (Bill, Schedule 1, paras (a)-(g)). - Requires a management plan within 5 years, tabled in Parliament, ensuring transparency and public input (Canada National Parks Act, s.11). - Advances public education and recreation purposes stated in the Act for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations (Canada National Parks Act, s.4). - Does not raise taxes or authorize new spending in the bill; funding decisions can be handled through the normal budget process (Bill text). ## Opponents' View - Commits to a new federal park without cost estimates for start-up, operations, or infrastructure in an urban setting (Bill text; Data unavailable). - Implementation risk: the bill does not address how lands will transfer to federal administration or how existing leases and uses will be handled, which could delay implementation (Bill text). - Potential constraints on future infrastructure or industrial projects within the mapped area due to the Act’s conservation-first mandate (Canada National Parks Act, s.8(2)). - Urban enforcement and maintenance could be complex; the bill does not outline staffing, policing, or coordination with municipal services. Data unavailable. - Governance gaps: the bill does not specify Indigenous co-management or municipal roles, leaving key decisions to later agreements and the park management plan (Bill text; Canada National Parks Act, s.11).

Allegiance Oath Becomes Optional for Parliament

## Summary This bill lets every Member of Parliament and every Senator choose which oath to take before they take their seat. They may take the traditional Oath of Allegiance, a new Oath of Office, or both. The bill adds the Oath of Office text to the Constitution Act, 1867 and states that this Act forms part of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (Bill, s. 128(2); Fifth Schedule; Interpretation). - Lets MPs and Senators take an Oath of Office instead of the Oath of Allegiance, or take both (Bill, s. 128(2)). - Adds a new Oath of Office: “I, A.B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.” (Bill, Fifth Schedule). - Keeps the oath requirement “before taking their seat,” but makes the allegiance oath optional (Bill, s. 128(2)). - Applies only to the federal Senate and House of Commons; it does not change provincial or territorial oaths (Bill text). - Becomes law on Royal Assent; the bill sets no later start date (Bill text). - Does not authorize new spending or change revenues (Bill text). ## What it means for you - Households and voters - No direct change to services, taxes, or benefits. This is about the oaths taken by federal MPs and Senators (Bill text). - Members of Parliament and Senators - You may choose to swear only the Oath of Office, only the Oath of Allegiance, or both, before taking your seat (Bill, s. 128(2)). - The Oath of Office states you will act in the best interest of Canada and uphold the Constitution (Bill, Fifth Schedule). - Timing remains the same: you must take the chosen oath before sitting or voting (Bill, s. 128(2)). - Parliament administration - Update swearing-in scripts, forms, records, and guidance to offer both oath options (Bill, s. 128(2); Fifth Schedule). - Provinces and territories - No change to provincial or territorial legislature oaths. This bill amends federal constitutional provisions for Parliament only (Bill text). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - The bill includes no appropriations and no revenue changes (Bill text). - Any administrative costs to update forms and ceremonies are not stated. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Expands choice while keeping tradition: Members can still swear allegiance, but those who prefer may take an office-focused oath instead (Bill, s. 128(2)). - Focuses on duty to Canada and the Constitution, which applies equally to all members regardless of personal views on the Crown (Bill, Fifth Schedule). - Minimal operational impact: The oath remains a pre-seat requirement; only the content options change (Bill, s. 128(2)). - No spending or tax impacts; implementation is limited to procedures for administering oaths (Bill text). - The Act is expressly deemed part of the Constitution, clarifying its constitutional status (Bill, Interpretation). ## Opponents' View - Constitutional risk: Some may argue that changing an oath tied to the Crown affects “the office of the Queen/King,” which could require unanimous provincial consent under the amending formula (Constitution Act, 1982, s. 41(a)). Assumption: Courts have not ruled on whether this specific change engages s. 41. - Litigation and uncertainty: If courts later reject the change, the status of members sworn only by the new oath, and the validity of their votes, could be challenged. Assumption: Depends on future court outcomes; not determined by the bill. - Symbolic consequences: Making allegiance optional may be seen as reducing the Crown’s role in Parliament, which could face political resistance. Assumption: Impact is symbolic and not measured in the bill. - Clarity of enforcement: The Oath of Office uses broad terms (“best interest of Canada,” “upholding its Constitution”) without new enforcement mechanisms beyond existing oath procedures (Bill, Fifth Schedule).

Canada tightens foreign investment security reviews

## Summary Bill C-34 updates the Investment Canada Act to tighten and speed up national security reviews of foreign investments. It adds a pre-closing notice and waiting period for certain deals, lets the Minister set interim conditions during a review, expands who can be reviewed (including some minority investments and state‑owned enterprises), raises penalties, and allows limited information sharing with allies. Most provisions take effect on dates set by Cabinet order (Coming into Force). - Requires some foreign investors to notify the government before closing and to wait while initial security checks run (s. 12(1)(a), 12(2)). - Lets the Minister impose interim conditions during a review to prevent harm (s. 25.3(1.1)). - Expands review to certain minority investments that grant access to sensitive assets or non‑public technical information, or special governance rights (s. 11(1)(c)). - Makes more state‑owned enterprise (SOE) deals reviewable even below normal thresholds (s. 15(2); s. 25.1(b.1)). - Raises penalties up to the greater of $500,000 and a prescribed amount for failing to pre‑notify, and up to the greater of $25,000/day and a prescribed amount for other breaches (s. 40(2)(d)). - Allows undertakings (binding promises) to mitigate risks, and protects sensitive information in any court review (s. 25.3(6)(c); s. 25.7). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct new obligations. Effects are indirect, through how the government screens foreign investments. Data on prices, wages, or service levels is unavailable. - Workers - If you work in sensitive sectors (to be prescribed by regulation), foreign acquisitions or investments may face pre‑closing notice, waiting periods, interim conditions, or blocks (s. 12(1)(a); s. 25.3(1), (1.1)). - Reviews must now consider impacts on intellectual property funded by the Government of Canada and the use and protection of Canadians’ personal information (s. 20(c), 20(e)). - Canadian businesses - If your business is in a prescribed sector, or a deal gives a non‑Canadian access to “material non‑public technical information” or “material assets,” and board/management nomination or special rights, the investor must pre‑notify and wait before closing (s. 11(1)(c); s. 12(1)(a), 12(2)). Definitions of “material assets” and “material non‑public technical information” will be set by regulation (s. 11(2)). - During review, you may face interim conditions (for example, limits on data access) until the review ends (s. 25.3(1.1)). - You and the investor can offer undertakings to mitigate national security risks; the Minister can approve the deal based on those undertakings and can later adjust or release them (s. 25.3(6)(c); s. 25.31). - You may be required to provide information to the Minister during a review (s. 25.11; s. 25.12; s. 25.5). - Non‑Canadian investors (including funds) - Pre‑closing notice and a standstill are required for certain investments; closing before the waiting periods expire is prohibited (s. 12(1)(a), 12(2); s. 25.2(1); s. 25.3(1)). - Certain minority investments are now in scope if they grant governance rights or access to sensitive assets or non‑public technical information (s. 11(1)(c)). - SOE deals face broader review, including asset acquisitions, even below normal review thresholds (s. 15(2); s. 25.1(b.1)). - A prior conviction for an act of corruption, inside or outside Canada, by itself gives the Minister reasonable grounds to issue an initial notice (s. 25.2(1.1)). - Penalties for non‑compliance are higher, including up to the greater of $500,000 and a prescribed amount for failing to pre‑notify, and up to the greater of $25,000/day and a prescribed amount for other breaches (s. 40(2)(d)). - Sensitive information can be protected in any judicial review; the court may consider evidence not fully disclosed to you, but must provide a summary that reasonably informs you of the case (s. 25.7). - Provinces and local governments - In “net benefit” reviews, compatibility with provincial policy objectives remains a factor, now with explicit references to personal information protection and federally funded IP (s. 20(c), 20(e)). No new direct mandates. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriation is in the bill. Administration and enforcement costs for the federal government are not stated. Data unavailable. - The bill adjusts penalties and enforcement tools (potential revenues depend on future enforcement). Key monetary changes: Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Maximum penalty for failure to pre‑notify or file in prescribed cases | Up to the greater of CAD $500,000 (CAD) and any prescribed amount | Per violation (court‑ordered) | s. 40(2)(d)(i) Maximum penalty for other contraventions (e.g., breach of orders/undertakings) | Up to the greater of CAD $25,000 (CAD) and any prescribed amount | Per day of contravention (court‑ordered) | s. 40(2)(d)(ii), s. 40(2.1) ## Proponents' View - Modernizes screening to capture sensitive minority investments that grant access to critical assets or non‑public technical information, closing known gaps (s. 11(1)(c); s. 11(2)). - Reduces risk between signing and closing by requiring pre‑closing notice and a standstill for higher‑risk deals, allowing issues to be addressed before harm occurs (s. 12(1)(a), 12(2); s. 25.2, 25.3). - Interim conditions prevent injury during reviews (for example, limiting data or facility access) and are quicker to deploy (s. 25.3(1.1)). - Undertakings create a flexible path to mitigate risks while allowing beneficial investment to proceed; the Minister can accept, adjust, or release undertakings as circumstances change (s. 25.3(6)(c); s. 25.31). - Stronger enforcement and clearer court procedures improve compliance and protect sensitive information, while ensuring the investor receives a summary of the case (s. 40(2)(d); s. 25.7). - Better coordination with allies through limited information sharing with foreign investment review agencies enhances cross‑border security screening (s. 36(3.1)(c)). - Explicit attention to federally funded IP and Canadians’ personal information strengthens protection of key assets and data (s. 20(c), 20(e)). Assumptions to note: That pre‑notification and interim conditions will be applied proportionally and will not deter benign investment. Data on deterrence effects is unavailable. ## Opponents' View - Regulatory uncertainty: key terms like “material assets” and “material non‑public technical information” will be defined later by regulation, leaving businesses unsure what triggers pre‑notice and review (s. 11(2)). - Broader discretion and limited appeal: ministerial and Governor in Council decisions are final except for judicial review, which can rely on evidence not fully disclosed to the investor, reducing transparency (s. 25.6; s. 25.7). - Transaction delays and costs: pre‑closing notice, standstills, and interim conditions can slow deals, complicate financing, and increase legal/compliance costs, especially in fast‑moving sectors (s. 12(2); s. 25.3(1.1)). Quantified impacts unavailable. - Chilling effect on investment by SOEs and minority investors: more SOE and minority deals are reviewable or notifiable, even for asset purchases, which could reduce capital inflows in targeted sectors (s. 15(2); s. 25.1(b.1); s. 11(1)(c)). Evidence on magnitude is unavailable. - Information sharing and confidentiality risks: allowing disclosure of otherwise privileged information to foreign states may raise confidentiality concerns despite terms and conditions (s. 36(3.1)(c)). - High penalties and open‑ended review start (“when it comes to the Minister’s attention”) may increase risk for routine transactions and create uncertainty about timing (s. 40(2)(d); s. 25.11). Assumptions to note: That broader scope and stronger penalties will materially deter investment; the bill does not provide empirical estimates. Data unavailable.

Parliament approves $8.9B year-end spending

## Summary This bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $8,911,403,788 for 2023–2024, as set out in Supplementary Estimates (C). It is a year-end appropriation that funds ongoing programs and specific pressures across departments. It also sets rules for timing, accounting adjustments, and limited carry-forward into 2024–2025 (Schedules 1–2). - Total authorized: $8,743,160,420 in Schedule 1 for 2023–2024, plus $168,243,368 in Schedule 2 available through March 31, 2025 (Schedules 1–2). - Largest items: National Defence ($2,180,791,583), Indigenous Services ($2,039,010,190), and Treasury Board Secretariat compensation and benefits ($1,559,972,399) (Schedule 1). - Student and apprentice loan debts: 20,201 debts written off, totaling $215,518,566 (Schedule 1, Employment and Social Development 10c). - Indigenous loan guarantees: increases the cap the Minister may guarantee from $2.2 billion to $3.0 billion (authority change; no direct dollar outlay) (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 15c). - Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority: $507,329,726 to continue the Gordie Howe International Bridge project (Schedule 1). - No tax changes; items are deemed effective April 1, 2023 (Bill clause “Effective date (2)”; Schedules 1–2). ## What it means for you - Households - No change to tax rates or new permanent programs. This is spending authority to continue existing services in 2023–2024 (Bill preamble; Schedule references). - Program-level details are in Supplementary Estimates (C), which this Act references; the Act itself lists votes and totals, not service standards (Schedules 1–2). - Students and apprentices - The government will write off 20,201 Canada Student Loans and Apprentice Loans debts totaling $215,518,566. This is an accounting write‑off for uncollectable debts under the Financial Administration Act (Schedule 1, Employment and Social Development 10c). It does not create a new forgiveness program. - Indigenous communities and organizations - $2,039,010,190 to Indigenous Services, mostly for grants and contributions that flow through existing programs (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 1c, 10c, 15c). - The cap on federal loan guarantees for eligible Indigenous projects increases from $2.2 billion to $3.0 billion, which can help communities access financing. It also increases the federal contingent liability (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 15c). - Federal employees and retirees - Funding for compensation adjustments ($1,171,701,202), paylist requirements like parental allowances and severance ($200,000,000), and public service insurance and benefits ($179,303,530) supports wage settlements and benefits administration (Schedule 1, Treasury Board Secretariat 15c, 30c, 20c). - Commuters and border users - $507,329,726 to the Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority supports ongoing construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge (Schedule 1). - Canada Border Services Agency ($45,314,164) and Canada Revenue Agency ($122,929,204) receive funds that can be used this year or by March 31, 2025, supporting service continuity (Schedule 2; “Order of payment (2)”). - Businesses and contractors - Capital and operating funds at National Defence ($2,180,791,583) and Public Works ($236,215,793) sustain procurement and facility projects (Schedule 1). - Other opportunities exist in Public Safety, RCMP, Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, and Indigenous Services through grants, contributions, and contracts (Schedule 1). - Provinces, municipalities, and local partners - Certain votes allow contributions toward construction or local projects (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans capital; Environment; Public Works). Specific recipients and amounts are detailed in the Estimates, not this Act (Schedule 1, DFO 5c; Environment 5c; Public Works 5c). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $8,911,403,788 (FY2023–2024). - Totals by Schedule: - Schedule 1 (available for 2023–2024): $8,743,160,420 (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 (can be charged to 2023–2024 or 2024–2025; lapses after March 31, 2025): $168,243,368 (Schedule 2; “Order of payment (2)”). Key line items (selected): Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Department of National Defence (ops, capital, grants) | $2,180,791,583 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Indigenous Services (ops; grants and contributions) | $2,039,010,190 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (compensation, insurance, paylist, program) | $1,559,972,399 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority | $507,329,726 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (ops; grants and contributions) | $566,506,563 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Employment and Social Development (incl. $215,518,566 student/apprentice loan write‑off) | $284,066,152 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (ops; capital; grants and contributions) | $261,331,606 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Public Works and Government Services (ops; capital) | $236,215,793 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (ops; grants and contributions) | $220,057,278 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (ops; capital; grants and contributions; pensions for locally engaged staff) | $177,594,324 | One-time appropriation (FY2023–2024) | Schedule 1 Canada Revenue Agency (ops; grants and contributions) | $122,929,204 | Available through March 31, 2025 | Schedule 2 Canada Border Services Agency (ops; capital) | $45,314,164 | Available through March 31, 2025 | Schedule 2 Notes: - Items are spending authority “not exceeding” the stated amounts; actual spending may be less (Bill clause “$8,911,403,788 granted for 2023–24”). - Many votes refer to “the grants listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year.” Program-level breakdowns are in Supplementary Estimates (C), not in this Act (Schedule 1, multiple departments). ## Proponents' View - Ensures departments can meet late‑year pressures without interrupting services, since all items are effective as of April 1, 2023 (Bill clause “Effective date (2)”; Schedules 1–2). - Supports public service wage settlements and benefits administration, reducing payroll backlogs and ensuring mandated payments, via $1,171,701,202 (Compensation Adjustments), $200,000,000 (Paylist Requirements), and $179,303,530 (Public Service Insurance) (Schedule 1, Treasury Board Secretariat 15c, 30c, 20c). - Advances critical infrastructure and trade by funding the Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority with $507,329,726 to keep the Gordie Howe International Bridge on track (Schedule 1). - Provides significant funding for Indigenous services ($2,039,010,190) and increases the federal loan guarantee cap to $3.0 billion to facilitate community projects (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 1c, 10c, 15c). - Maintains national security and readiness with $2,180,791,583 for National Defence operations, capital, and grants (Schedule 1). - Cleans up uncollectable student debt (20,201 accounts; $215,518,566), reducing administrative costs of pursuing debts unlikely to be recovered (Schedule 1, Employment and Social Development 10c). ## Opponents' View - Adds $8,911,403,788 late in the fiscal year through Supplementary Estimates (C), raising concerns about budget discipline and limited time for parliamentary scrutiny (Schedules 1–2). - Large compensation and paylist items total $1,559,972,399, which may reflect ongoing pressures and could contribute to structural spending growth (Schedule 1, Treasury Board Secretariat 15c, 20c, 30c). - Many votes allow “the grants listed in any of the Estimates,” leaving program‑level details outside the Act and making it harder to assess specific outcomes from this appropriation alone (Schedule 1, multiple departments). - Increasing the Indigenous loan guarantee cap to $3.0 billion expands federal contingent liabilities and exposes taxpayers if projects default (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 15c). - Big capital allocations (e.g., Defence; Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority at $507,329,726) carry delivery and cost‑overrun risks typical of large projects (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 funds can be paid up to March 31, 2025, which may weaken fiscal‑year discipline and blur accountability on when results are delivered (“Order of payment (2)”; Schedule 2).

Interim $74B Keeps Federal Services Running

## Summary This is the federal interim spending bill for Canada’s 2024–2025 fiscal year. It authorizes the government to spend up to CAD $74,011,525,281 to keep programs and services running until full-year funding is approved. Amounts are tied to the 2024–25 Main Estimates and are released in fractions of annual funding (“twelfths”) to match early-year needs (Bill s. 2). - Keeps federal services funded through March 31, 2025; some items may be charged through March 31, 2026 (Schedule 2). - Directs large interim funding to Indigenous services and settlements, veterans’ programs, health, research councils, and core operations (Schedules 1.1–1.8). - Sets aside $687.5 million for urgent or unforeseen needs under Government Contingencies (Schedule 1.8). - Caps international development payments for 2024–25 under existing laws (Schedule 1.9). - Requires money be used only for the stated purposes of each vote (Bill “Purpose of each item”). ## What it means for you - Households - Federal services (tax filing support, benefits delivery channels, passports, borders) continue without interruption; funding flows to CRA and CBSA operations (Schedule 2; Schedule 1.1 Statistics Canada; Bill s. 2). - Public health operations and grants continue; PHAC operating ($702.3 million, six twelfths) and grants ($249.2 million, eight twelfths) (Schedules 1.3, 1.5). - Marine Atlantic ferry service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be funded ($53.0 million interim) (Schedule 1.1). - Parks Canada sites continue operations; some contributions can flow to provinces/municipalities ($219.3 million interim) (Schedule 1.1). - Indigenous communities - Interim contributions for programs and agreements are large and front‑loaded: Indigenous Services contributions ($13.753 billion, nine twelfths) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations contributions ($7.424 billion, ten twelfths) (Schedules 1.6, 1.7). - Veterans - Grants and contributions to veterans’ programs continue ($2.000 billion, five twelfths) (Schedule 1.2). - Workers (federal and RCMP members) - Public Service Insurance (health, pension, benefits) receives $1.281 billion (four twelfths) (Schedule 1.1). - RCMP member health and disability programs receive $317.4 million (four twelfths) (Schedule 1.1). - Students and researchers - Research grants continue through NSERC ($439.4 million, four twelfths) and SSHRC ($383.0 million, four twelfths) (Schedule 1.1). - Businesses and contractors - Procurement continues across Shared Services Canada (IT) ($786.4 million combined operating and capital, four twelfths) and Public Works (accommodation and central services, $1.0499 billion, four twelfths) (Schedule 1.1). - Travelers and commuters - VIA High Frequency Rail project office and related work continue ($41.5 million interim) (Schedule 1.8). - Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority continues construction/operations funding ($317.2 million interim) (Schedule 1.1). - Culture and communications - Telefilm Canada operations continue ($94.7 million interim) and CRTC operations continue ($7.39 million interim) (Schedule 1.8). - Accountability and timing - Most amounts must be spent by March 31, 2025; select items (CRA, CBSA) may be charged through March 31, 2026 (Schedule 2). - This bill does not change taxes or create new permanent programs; it authorizes spending for listed purposes in the Main Estimates (Bill s. 2; Schedules). ## Expenses Estimated gross spending authority: CAD $74,011,525,281 for FY2024–2025 (Bill s. 2). - Key components by Act reference (fractions refer to portions of full‑year Main Estimates authority released now) (Bill s. 2; Schedules 1.1–1.9): - Three twelfths across remaining Main Estimates votes: $24,716,610,903 (Bill s. 2(a)). - Schedule 1.1 (four twelfths): $9,402,339,421. - Schedule 1.2 (five twelfths): $6,172,164,025. - Schedule 1.3 (six twelfths): $8,733,804,026. - Schedule 1.4 (seven twelfths): $836,989,879. - Schedule 1.5 (eight twelfths): $249,169,510. - Schedule 1.6 (nine twelfths): $15,458,217,923. - Schedule 1.7 (ten twelfths): $7,423,697,296. - Schedule 1.8 (eleven twelfths): $1,018,532,295. - Schedule 1.9 (twelve twelfths): $3. Table: selected items and special authorities Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Government Contingencies (TBS) | $687,500,000 | One‑time interim (11/12) | Schedule 1.8 CRA and CBSA (two‑year charge window) | $1,772,278,778 | One‑time interim (3/12) | Schedule 2 Indigenous Services – contributions | $13,753,298,340 | Interim (9/12) | Schedule 1.6 Crown‑Indigenous Relations – contributions | $7,423,697,296 | Interim (10/12) | Schedule 1.7 Veterans Affairs – grants & contributions | $2,000,259,313 | Interim (5/12) | Schedule 1.2 Health – grants & contributions | $2,712,298,502 | Interim (6/12) | Schedule 1.3 ESDC – grants & contributions | $5,092,820,203 | Interim (6/12) | Schedule 1.3 Shared Services Canada – operating & capital | $786,412,600 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 Public Service Insurance (TBS) | $1,281,224,263 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 PHAC – grants & contributions | $249,169,510 | Interim (8/12) | Schedule 1.5 NSERC grants | $439,390,503 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 SSHRC grants | $382,959,552 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority | $317,219,258 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 RCMP member health/benefits | $317,356,597 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 Marine Atlantic | $53,003,653 | Interim (4/12) | Schedule 1.1 Telefilm Canada | $94,699,542 | Interim (11/12) | Schedule 1.8 VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. | $41,482,834 | Interim (11/12) | Schedule 1.8 - International payment caps for 2024–25: up to $486,916,000 to the International Development Association, and up to $249,404,568 to international financial institutions (Schedule 1.9). ## Proponents' View - Ensures continuity of government services from April 1 without disruption by providing interim supply based on the Main Estimates (Bill s. 2). - Uses “twelfths” to meter cash flow and align funds to early‑year needs, which supports control until full supply is passed (e.g., four twelfths to NSERC/SSHRC; six twelfths to ESDC and Health grants) (Schedules 1.1, 1.3). - Targets priority areas with significant interim funding: Indigenous Services ($13.753 billion, nine twelfths) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations ($7.424 billion, ten twelfths) to maintain agreements and services (Schedules 1.6, 1.7). - Maintains research, health, and veterans’ supports with measurable amounts, such as Health grants ($2.712 billion) and Veterans Affairs ($2.000 billion) (Schedules 1.3, 1.2). - Preserves transparency and safeguards: spending must match stated purposes; unspent Schedule 2 amounts lapse after the following year; payments are drawn against the oldest appropriation first; adjustments are limited to non‑cash accounting before Public Accounts are tabled (Bill “Purpose of each item”; Adjustments clauses; Schedule 2). - Provides a contingency reserve ($687.5 million) for urgent or unforeseen needs within legal mandates, allowing timely responses (Schedule 1.8). ## Opponents' View - Large front‑loaded amounts reduce later parliamentary leverage; for example, nine twelfths for Indigenous Services ($15.458 billion total across Schedule 1.6 items) and ten twelfths for Crown‑Indigenous Relations contributions ($7.424 billion) are available early (Schedules 1.6, 1.7). - Flexibility can dilute line‑item control: some votes allow increasing or decreasing specific grants with Treasury Board approval (e.g., RCMP grants; Veterans Affairs grants), shifting detail outside the Act (Schedule 1.1 RCMP; Schedule 1.2 Veterans). - The Government Contingencies vote ($687.5 million) permits funding miscellaneous or new grants and contributions not otherwise provided for, which may reduce program‑specific scrutiny even if within legal mandates (Schedule 1.8). - Two‑year charge authority for CRA and CBSA ($1.772 billion) can blur fiscal‑year accountability; payments may be applied until March 31, 2026, complicating year‑over‑year tracking despite lapse rules (Schedule 2). - Many organizations may “net” revenues against spending under Financial Administration Act section 29.1(2)(a) (e.g., Health, Justice, Shared Services, Public Works), which can make gross spending less visible in interim figures (Schedules 1.1–1.3).

Canada Commits to National Child Care System

## Summary This bill sets out the federal government’s plan for a Canada‑wide early learning and child care system. It commits to long‑term federal funding for provinces and Indigenous peoples, sets guiding principles, creates a National Advisory Council, and requires annual public reporting (Purpose; Funding commitments; National Advisory Council — Establishment; Annual Report). - Commits to maintain long‑term federal funding for child care, delivered mainly through agreements with provinces and Indigenous entities (Funding commitments; Funding agreements). - Sets principles: access, affordability, inclusion, and quality, with emphasis on public and non‑profit providers and a supported workforce (Funding — Guiding principles (1)). - Affirms Indigenous rights and adds principles specific to Indigenous early learning and care (Rights of Indigenous peoples; Other guiding principles — Indigenous peoples). - Requires the Minister to table a yearly report on funding and progress (Annual Report — Report; Tabling). - Creates a National Advisory Council of 10–18 members to advise the Minister and consult widely (National Advisory Council — Establishment; Functions; Meetings). ## What it means for you - Households - You may see continued federal support for lower child care fees and more spaces, because the Act commits to long‑term funding via provincial and Indigenous agreements. The Act itself does not set fees or guarantee a space (Funding commitments; Funding agreements). - Annual federal reports will summarize progress on quality, availability, affordability, accessibility, and inclusion, which lets parents track system performance (Annual Report — Report). - Early childhood educators and staff - The Act highlights recruitment and retention of a qualified, well‑supported workforce as part of “high quality” care, but it does not set wage floors or training rules. Any changes would flow through provincial or Indigenous agreements (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(d); Funding agreements). - Child care providers - Public and non‑profit providers are identified “in particular” for support under federal investments. For‑profit providers are not barred, but the principle may influence funding choices in agreements (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(a)). - Providers serving children with disabilities, Indigenous children, or official language minority communities are prioritized under inclusion and language commitments (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(c); Commitments re Official Languages Act (3)). - Provinces and territories - You continue to lead program design and standards. Federal funding is delivered “primarily through agreements” that reflect the Act’s principles (Funding agreements; Funding — Guiding principles (1)). - You can expect annual federal reporting and advice from the National Advisory Council, which may inform future agreements (Annual Report; National Advisory Council — Functions). - Indigenous governments and organizations - Federal investments must follow the co‑developed Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework and uphold rights under section 35 and free, prior, and informed consent in matters relating to children (Other guiding principles — Indigenous peoples; Rights of Indigenous peoples; Declaration (e)). - Funding is delivered through agreements with Indigenous governing bodies or entities that represent an Indigenous group (Funding agreements). - Official language minority communities - Federal investments under provincial agreements must be guided by the Official Languages Act commitments, which can support services in minority languages (Commitments re Official Languages Act (3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The Act contains no specific dollar appropriations, tax changes, or fee schedules. It commits to maintaining long‑term funding but does not set amounts; funding flows through separate intergovernmental agreements and budgets (Funding commitments; Funding agreements). - National Advisory Council: - 10–18 members; Chair may be full‑time or part‑time; other members are part‑time (National Advisory Council — Establishment; Appointment; Full‑time or part‑time membership). - Members are paid remuneration set by the Governor in Council and reimbursed for travel and living expenses. Exact amounts are not stated (Remuneration; Travel and living expenses). - Meets at least 4 times per fiscal year unless the Minister specifies otherwise (Meetings). - Annual reporting and administration will have costs, but the Act provides no figures (Annual Report — Report). - Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - It makes the federal role durable by stating a commitment to long‑term funding for a Canada‑wide system, giving provinces and Indigenous partners more predictability (Funding commitments; Funding agreements). - The principles steer money toward access, affordability, inclusion, and quality, including rural and remote communities and children with disabilities (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(a)-(c)). - It supports a qualified and stable workforce by naming recruitment and retention as key to quality, which can guide future agreements and investments (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(d)). - It upholds Indigenous rights and applies an Indigenous‑led framework to investments, aligning with free, prior, and informed consent (Rights of Indigenous peoples; Other guiding principles — Indigenous peoples; Declaration (e)). - It improves accountability through a public annual report and an advisory council that consults parents, educators, providers, and experts (Annual Report — Report; National Advisory Council — Functions). - It respects provincial leadership by using funding agreements rather than federal program rules, reducing the risk of one‑size‑fits‑all mandates (Funding agreements). ## Opponents' View - It does not create an individual entitlement to a child care spot or cap fees. Access, staffing, wages, and fees still depend on separate agreements and provincial or Indigenous policies (Purpose; Funding agreements). - The funding “commitment” has no dollar amounts or timelines, and future Parliaments control appropriations. The promise may be symbolic without binding fiscal obligations (Funding commitments). - Emphasizing public and non‑profit providers could disadvantage for‑profit centres and limit supply growth in some areas (Funding — Guiding principles (1)(a)). - Transparency may be limited because the annual report covers information “in the Minister’s possession” and “within the Minister’s authority to disclose,” which may leave gaps (Annual Report — Report; Sharing of information). - The Advisory Council adds administrative costs and meetings, but the Act gives no performance targets or cost caps, making efficiency uncertain (National Advisory Council — Establishment; Remuneration; Meetings). - Federal involvement in an area of provincial responsibility could lead to jurisdictional disputes or uneven implementation through negotiated agreements (Declaration (d); Funding agreements).

Implements updated Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement

## Summary This bill brings the 2023 Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA) into Canadian law. It approves the Agreement, sets up how Canada will run dispute and committee work under it, and updates several federal statutes to align with the new terms. It also requires oversight of Canadian companies operating in Ukraine and replaces the 2017 CUFTA implementation law. - Approves the 2023 CUFTA signed on September 22, 2023, and makes federal laws align with it (Approval — Agreement approved; Interpretation consistent with Agreement). - Lets the federal Cabinet suspend trade benefits if Ukraine breaches the deal, per the Agreement’s rules (Orders — Article 28.13 of Agreement). - Requires the trade minister to ensure Canadian companies in Ukraine follow agreed principles and to set up a complaints process and annual reporting (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies). - Commits Canada to pay its share of costs for CUFTA committees, panels, and administration (Payment of expenditures; Payment of costs). - Updates customs, tariffs, investment, arbitration, and trade tribunal laws to reflect the 2023 CUFTA and retire 2017-era provisions (Related Amendments). - Takes effect on a day set by Cabinet; some transition clauses end on the sixth anniversary of that date (Coming into Force — Order in council; Sixth anniversary). ## What it means for you - Households and consumers - The Act itself does not list tariff rates. It approves the Agreement and updates laws so customs and tariffs can follow the new CUFTA once in force (Approval — Agreement approved; Customs Act amendments). Price impacts are not stated. Data unavailable. - Workers - The Agreement’s objectives include protecting workers’ rights and cooperation on labour (Purpose). The bill does not create new individual workplace rights you can enforce in court (Causes of Action). Job impacts are not quantified. Data unavailable. - Exporters and importers (Canada–Ukraine trade) - Customs and tariff rules will be applied under the 2023 CUFTA once in force, with transitional references to the 2017 CUFTA for ongoing proceedings (Customs Act, s. 169.1; Customs Tariff amendments). - If a dispute arises and benefits are suspended, Canadian or Ukrainian traders could face temporary changes to market access during the suspension period (Orders — Article 28.13 of Agreement). - Origin verification and other customs processes are updated to reflect the new Agreement, with temporary provisions for CUFTA 2017 references that later repeal on the sixth anniversary (Customs Act amendments). - Canadian companies operating in Ukraine - You must comply with the Agreement’s referenced principles and guidelines; the minister must ensure compliance and will run a complaints process about non‑compliance (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies). - The minister must publish an annual report on these activities starting January 1, 2025 (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Annual report). - Federal suppliers and bidders (procurement) - The bill changes the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) framework tied to Ukraine by removing “Ukraine” from a country list and repealing several CUFTA‑2017‑specific provisions. Complaint routes and definitions under the updated Agreement change accordingly (Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act amendments). Check CITT guidance once in force. - Civil society and individuals - You cannot start a court case to enforce rights that arise only from this Act or from the Agreement unless the Attorney General of Canada consents (Causes of Action). - Water is excluded. The Act and Agreement do not apply to natural surface or ground water in any state (Non-application of Act and Agreement to water). - Government agencies - Ministers may appoint Canadian representatives to CUFTA committees and dispute panels and must provide administrative support under Chapter 28 (Panels, Committees… — Powers of Minister; Administrative support). - Canada must pay its share of CUFTA bodies’ costs and any panel member remuneration and expenses (Payment of expenditures; Payment of costs). - Timing - The Act takes effect on a date set by Cabinet. Certain transitional clauses automatically change on the sixth anniversary of that date (Coming into Force — Order in council; Sixth anniversary). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Canada must pay its share of CUFTA institutional and administrative costs; amounts are not stated in the bill (Payment of expenditures). - Canada must pay remuneration and expenses for CUFTA panels, experts, assistants, and related general expenses; amounts depend on use and are not stated (Payment of costs). - Departments must provide administrative support for dispute settlement and run a complaints process and annual reporting; no appropriation amounts are listed (Administrative support; Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies). - No official fiscal note is included in the text. Data unavailable. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Canada’s share of CUFTA Commission/admin costs | Data unavailable | Ongoing | (Payment of expenditures) Panel member and expert remuneration/expenses | Data unavailable | Per panel/event | (Payment of costs) Administrative support for dispute settlement | Data unavailable | Ongoing | (Administrative support) Compliance complaints process and annual report | Data unavailable | Annual | (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies) ## Proponents' View - Modernizes the 2017 CUFTA and sets a predictable framework for trade and investment by approving the updated Agreement and aligning federal laws (Approval — Agreement approved; Interpretation consistent with Agreement). - Supports fair competition and reduces barriers to trade in goods and services, which can expand reciprocal trade opportunities (Purpose). - Embeds commitments on labour rights, the environment, SMEs, gender, Indigenous participation, anti‑corruption, and human rights, signaling responsible trade practices (Purpose). - Provides clear, rules‑based dispute settlement, including panels and the ability to suspend benefits when needed to enforce compliance (Panels, Committees…; Orders — Article 28.13 of Agreement). - Increases corporate accountability by requiring Canadian companies in Ukraine to follow agreed principles and by creating a public complaints and reporting system (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies). ## Opponents' View - Limits private enforcement. Individuals and firms cannot sue to enforce Agreement obligations without the Attorney General’s consent, reducing direct legal recourse (Causes of Action). - Introduces compliance oversight costs for Canadian companies operating in Ukraine due to mandatory adherence to principles, a complaints process, and annual reporting scrutiny; the bill lists no funding or guidance details (Compliance with Principles and Guidelines — Canadian Companies). - Creates uncertainty from the power to suspend benefits by order, which could change market access conditions for traders during disputes (Orders — Article 28.13 of Agreement). - Amends procurement complaint pathways tied to Ukraine at the CITT, which may disrupt established processes for suppliers during transition (Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act amendments). - Fiscal exposure is open‑ended. Canada must pay its share of CUFTA bodies and panel costs, but the bill provides no cost ceilings or estimates (Payment of expenditures; Payment of costs).

MAID for mental illness delayed to 2027

## Summary This bill delays eligibility for medical assistance in dying (MAID) where a person’s only medical condition is a mental illness. It pushes the start date for eligibility to March 17, 2027, and sets up a Joint Committee of Parliament to review this issue before then. It also includes coordinating rules to keep the Criminal Code wording clear during the delay period (Bill, Section 6; Coordinating Amendments). - People whose sole condition is a mental illness remain ineligible for MAID until March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6). - Health care providers may not provide MAID in those cases during the delay (Bill, Section 6). - A Joint Committee must start a review within 2 years of Royal Assent and may recommend changes; it expires when it tables its report or on March 17, 2027, whichever comes first (Bill, Review (1)-(4)). - If timing creates overlap with the 2021 MAID law, a temporary clause clarifies that, for eligibility, “a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability” until March 17, 2027, after which that clause is repealed (Bill, Coordinating Amendments s. 2(2)(b), (c)). ## What it means for you - Households - If your only medical condition is a mental illness, you cannot receive MAID until March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6). - If you have another eligible grievous and irremediable medical condition (not solely a mental illness), current MAID rules continue unchanged by this bill (Bill, Section 6). - Families and caregivers may face unchanged care needs for loved ones whose sole condition is a mental illness until at least March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6). - Workers and health care providers - Physicians, nurse practitioners, and MAID assessors must continue to treat cases where mental illness is the sole condition as ineligible until March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6). - Documentation and screening processes should reflect the continued exclusion through March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6; Coordinating Amendments). - Health systems and institutions - Hospitals, clinics, and MAID coordination services must maintain policies consistent with the federal ineligibility for sole mental illness through March 17, 2027 (Bill, Section 6). - No new federal reporting or funding programs are created by this bill (Bill text). - Governments and advocates - A Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons must begin a review within 2 years of Royal Assent; it may table recommendations before eligibility changes in 2027 (Bill, Review (1)-(3)). - The Committee ends when it tables its report or on March 17, 2027, whichever is earlier (Bill, Review (4)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points - The bill contains no direct appropriations, fees, or tax changes (Bill text). - Operating a Joint Committee uses parliamentary resources; no official cost estimate is provided. Data unavailable. - Health system costs or savings from the continued exclusion are not quantified in the bill. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Extending the date to March 17, 2027 provides more time to prepare clear practice standards, training, and oversight before allowing MAID for sole mental illness (Bill, Section 6; Review (1)-(3)). - The mandated Joint Committee review within 2 years of Royal Assent adds accountability and allows Parliament to adjust the Criminal Code if needed before the change takes effect (Bill, Review (1)-(3)). - Coordinating Amendments avoid legal uncertainty by making it explicit, during the delay, that a mental illness alone does not meet MAID eligibility, and by repealing that clause on March 17, 2027 (Bill, Coordinating Amendments s. 2(2)(b), (c)). - The hard sunset date signals planning certainty for provinces, regulators, and providers about when the exclusion ends (Bill, Section 6). ## Opponents' View - The extension delays access for people whose sole condition is a mental illness, creating unequal treatment compared to other grievous and irremediable conditions (Bill, Section 6). - Labeling “a mental illness is not considered to be an illness, disease or disability” for MAID eligibility during the delay could entrench stigma and create confusion among patients and providers (Bill, Coordinating Amendments s. 2(2)(b)). - The Joint Committee timeline—start within 2 years and expire by March 17, 2027—may compress the review and limit time for implementing any recommended changes before the exclusion lifts (Bill, Review (1)-(4)). - If health systems and regulators are still not ready by 2027, the fixed date could force last‑minute rule changes or another delay, adding uncertainty for patients and clinicians (Bill, Section 6).

Wireless licences must serve 50% in 3 years

## Summary This bill changes the Radiocommunication Act to set minimum build‑out rules for spectrum licences. It requires licence holders to provide service to at least 50% of people in their licence area within 3 years. For large licence areas (Tiers 1–4), it also requires 50% coverage in every smaller local area (Tier 5) inside that licence area (DGSO-006-19, July 23, 2019). If a company does not meet the rules, the Minister can revoke and reissue the licence. - Requires 50% population coverage in the licence area within 3 years (Bill s. 5(1.11)(a)). - For Tier 1–4 areas, requires 50% coverage in every Tier 5 area inside the licence, within 3 years (Bill s. 5(1.11)(b); DGSO-006-19). - If a licence is sold within 3 years, the same build‑out condition must be included in the sale (Bill s. 5(1.12)). - Non‑compliance can lead to revocation; immediate if no service at all, or in 180 days otherwise (Bill s. 5(3), 5(5)). - Before revocation takes effect, the Minister may arrange a transfer of service or issue a subordinate licence to a third party; this can restart a new 3‑year clock (Bill s. 5(6)–(6.2)). - After revocation or surrender, the Minister must reallocate the licence within 60 days; the former holder and affiliates cannot compete (Bill s. 5(8)–(9)). - Applies to existing licences; a new 3‑year period starts on the bill’s coming‑into‑force date (Transitional (1)–(2)). ## What it means for you - Households and mobile users - Carriers must provide service to at least 50% of the people in each local service area (Tier 5) within 3 years. This sets a minimum build‑out beyond major cities (Bill s. 5(1.11)(b)). - If a carrier fails to meet the rule, the Minister may shift service to another provider to avoid shut‑offs, including by issuing a subordinate licence (Bill s. 5(6)–(6.2)). - If a licence has provided no service at all, it can be revoked immediately, which could affect availability until service is reassigned (Bill s. 5(5)(a), 5(8)). - People in the affected area can sue a non‑compliant holder for loss or damage if the holder cannot arrange for another provider to assume service and does not surrender the licence (Bill s. 5(7)). - Rural and remote residents - The 50%‑per‑Tier‑5 rule applies inside large regional licences (Tiers 1–4). This forces carriers to reach at least half the population in each local area, including small towns and rural zones, within 3 years (Bill s. 5(1.11)(b); DGSO-006-19). - Businesses (wireless carriers and fixed wireless providers) - You must meet both 50% coverage in the overall licence area and 50% in each Tier 5 area within 3 years of issuance (Bill s. 5(1.11)). - Selling a licence within 3 years requires passing the same build‑out condition to the buyer (Bill s. 5(1.12)). - Failure to comply can lead to revocation, a 180‑day wind‑down if service exists, and ineligibility for the reallocation round; affiliates are also barred (Bill s. 5(3), 5(5)(b), 5(9)). - You may avoid revocation if the Minister approves an arrangement to transfer service or issues a subordinate licence to a third party that can meet the target within 3 years (Bill s. 5(6)–(6.2)). - Smaller providers and new entrants - You could gain access to spectrum sooner through subordinate licences or reallocation within 60 days if an incumbent misses targets (Bill s. 5(6.1), 5(8)). - Existing licence holders - The new build‑out rules apply to current licences, but the law deems them “issued” on the day the Act takes effect. Your 3‑year compliance period starts then (Transitional (1)–(2)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no direct appropriation in the bill). - Direct appropriations in the bill: None. The bill sets conditions and enforcement powers but does not spend money (Bill text). - Federal administration: The Minister (ISED) would need to monitor compliance, issue notices, manage transfers, and run reallocations within 60 days. Data unavailable. - Court and damages: Civil liability falls on licence holders; no federal payments are authorized (Bill s. 5(7)). - Effects on spectrum auction proceeds or fee revenues: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves coverage in small towns and rural areas by requiring 50% service in every Tier 5 area within large regional licences, within 3 years (Bill s. 5(1.11)(b); DGSO-006-19). - Reduces spectrum hoarding and delays. Firm timelines, revocation authority, and 60‑day reallocation create clear incentives to build (Bill s. 5(1.11), 5(3), 5(8)). - Protects users through managed transitions. The 180‑day window and subordinate licence option help maintain service while fixing non‑compliance (Bill s. 5(5)(b), 5(6)–(6.2)). - Applies promptly to current licences by resetting the 3‑year clock on the law’s start date, speeding deployment without retroactive penalties (Transitional (1)–(2)). - Adds accountability. If a holder cannot arrange a takeover and does not surrender, people can seek damages for losses (Bill s. 5(7)). Assumptions to note: That 50% targets are achievable within 3 years across varied terrains; no cost estimate is provided. ## Opponents' View - The 50% target in every Tier 5 area may be difficult or costly in remote or low‑density places, raising build‑out costs and risk (Bill s. 5(1.11)(b)). Data unavailable. - A uniform 3‑year deadline may not fit real‑world constraints such as permits, backhaul, supply chains, and weather, leading to rushed or sub‑optimal builds (Bill s. 5(1.11)). - Revocation risk adds uncertainty. Immediate revocation where no service exists and a 180‑day timeline otherwise may still disrupt projects and financing (Bill s. 5(5)). - Ineligibility to bid on reissued licences (including affiliates) could reduce licence value and dampen auction interest, possibly lowering future proceeds (Bill s. 5(9)). Data unavailable. - Expanded civil liability increases litigation and insurance exposure for carriers (Bill s. 5(7)). Data unavailable. - A statutory, one‑size build‑out rule may conflict with or reduce flexibility in band‑specific deployment conditions set in past auctions. Data unavailable. Assumptions to note: That added obligations will significantly reduce investment or auction revenue; no quantified evidence is provided.

Gun Crackdown and Nuclear Security Powers

## Summary This bill changes Canada’s Criminal Code, Firearms Act, Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It raises penalties for key gun crimes, creates new emergency orders to remove guns in risky situations, restricts handgun transfers to most individuals, and targets “ghost guns” and 3D-printed firearms. It also sets new rules for nuclear site security and adds a new inadmissibility ground for certain border crimes. - Raises maximum sentences for several firearms offences to 14 years (Criminal Code ss. 95, 96, 99, 100, 103). - Lets anyone apply for a 30-day emergency prohibition order to remove guns from a person who poses a safety risk; longer orders can follow a hearing (Criminal Code s. 110.1; s. 111). - Treats unlawfully made guns as prohibited and creates offences for 3D gun files and altering magazines (Criminal Code s. 84(1) “prohibited firearm”; s. 102.1; s. 104.1). - Stops new handgun registration certificates for individuals, with limited exemptions (Firearms Act s. 12.2; s. 97.1). - Tightens import, transfer, and advertising rules for firearms, magazines, and parts (Firearms Act ss. 25, 25.1, 27, 32, 36–38, “Advertising” offence). - Allows nuclear sites to field trained, armed security with limited peace officer powers (Nuclear Safety and Control Act ss. 27.1–27.4). ## What it means for you - Households and individuals - You can seek a fast, 30-day court order to prohibit someone from having guns if you believe there is a safety risk; judges can keep your information private (Criminal Code s. 110.1; ss. 110.2–110.3). - If you live with someone under a gun prohibition, a judge can place limits on your access to guns in the home for up to 30 days to keep that person from access (Criminal Code s. 117.0101). - Many parts take effect on dates set by the Governor in Council; some parts take effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Coming into Force). - Gun owners - No new handgun registration certificates will be issued to individuals. Transfers are limited to businesses and exempted people (e.g., certain sport shooters, or those with an authorization to carry) (Firearms Act s. 12.2; s. 97.1; s. 23.2(d.1)). - If you become subject to a protection order, your licence is automatically revoked and you must deliver any firearms within 24 hours (or an extended period set by the chief firearms officer) (Firearms Act s. 70.3). - A chief firearms officer must revoke your licence within 24 hours if they reasonably suspect domestic violence or stalking (Firearms Act s. 70.2). - A chief firearms officer must suspend your ability to use, acquire, and import firearms for up to 30 days if they reasonably suspect you are no longer eligible (Firearms Act s. 69.1; s. 69.2). - It is an offence to possess or share certain computer files for 3D printing or machining a firearm or prohibited device for the purpose of making or trafficking one (up to 10 years) (Criminal Code s. 102.1). - It is an offence to alter a legal magazine so it becomes a prohibited device (up to 5 years) (Criminal Code s. 104.1). - “Firearm parts” (e.g., barrels, handgun slides, and others set by regulation) are now covered by many offences and search powers (Criminal Code s. 84(1) “firearm part”). - A future category of semi-automatic, centre-fire firearms with detachable magazines of 6+ designed and made after the coming-into-force date will be prohibited (Criminal Code s. 84(1)(e)). - Sport shooters - You may be exempt from the handgun transfer limits only if you meet criteria and annually provide a letter from an approved sport shooting body for Olympic/Paralympic disciplines, or hold an authorization to carry (Firearms Act s. 97.1). - Businesses and carriers - Dealers must verify buyer eligibility and, for handguns, whether the buyer is an exempted individual; transfers of magazines and firearm parts to individuals require the individual to hold a firearms licence (Firearms Act ss. 25(2), 25.1, 27–28). - Advertising a firearm in a way that depicts, counsels, or promotes violence against a person is an offence, with exceptions for the film industry, Canadian Forces, and public safety personnel (Firearms Act “Advertising” offence). - Carrier employees are protected from certain offences for possession/transfer in the course of their duties (Criminal Code s. 117.09(3)). - Travelers and non-residents - To import ammunition, cartridge magazines, or firearm parts, individuals must show a valid licence, or if a non-resident 18+, make a confirmed declaration; customs can detain or dispose of items if rules are not met (Firearms Act ss. 36–38). - Nuclear facility operators - High-security sites must maintain an on-site nuclear response force of designated, trained officers, unless approved alternative arrangements are in place; limited peace officer powers apply on-site (Nuclear Safety and Control Act ss. 27.2–27.3). - The regulator may authorize acquisition and use of firearms, prohibited weapons, and prohibited devices for site security, with reporting duties (Nuclear Safety and Control Act s. 27.4). - Foreign nationals - A new inadmissibility ground applies for committing a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament on entering Canada (IRPA s. 36(2.1)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Government operations and justice system: - New court processes for emergency gun orders and related hearings (Criminal Code ss. 110.1, 111, 117.0101, 117.011). Data unavailable. - Added duties for chief firearms officers (suspensions, revocations, notices) and the Registrar, plus annual reporting by May 31 (Firearms Act ss. 69.1–70.3, 87, 93). Data unavailable. - Law enforcement tasks for seizures, returns, and investigations, including new offences (Criminal Code ss. 102.1, 104.1; Firearms Act s. 88.1). Data unavailable. - Nuclear sector: - High-security site requirements for staffing, training, equipment, and reporting (Nuclear Safety and Control Act ss. 27.2–27.4). Data unavailable. - Businesses and individuals: - Compliance work for transfers, imports, and advertising rules (Firearms Act ss. 25–28, 32, 36–38, “Advertising” offence). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Targets “ghost guns” and 3D-printed weapons by prohibiting unlawfully made firearms and criminalizing key computer data used to make them (Criminal Code s. 84(1) “prohibited firearm”; s. 102.1). - Reduces handgun proliferation by stopping new individual registrations and limiting transfers to businesses and narrow exemptions (Firearms Act s. 12.2; s. 97.1). - Provides fast protection in domestic violence and stalking risks through 30-day emergency orders and mandatory or automatic licence actions (Criminal Code s. 110.1; Firearms Act ss. 70.2–70.3). - Increases maximum penalties to 14 years for trafficking and related offences to reflect seriousness and deter organized crime (Criminal Code ss. 95, 96, 99, 100, 103). - Closes loopholes on magazine tampering and brings key parts under the law to curb illegal modification and assembly (Criminal Code s. 104.1; s. 84(1) “firearm part”). - Enhances security at nuclear sites by allowing trained on-site forces with defined, limited powers and mandatory oversight and reporting (Nuclear Safety and Control Act ss. 27.2–27.4). ## Opponents' View - Due process and privacy concerns: emergency orders can be issued ex parte with search and seizure, including without a warrant in urgent cases, and records can be sealed; risks of misuse or uneven application (Criminal Code ss. 110.1(2),(5)–(7); 117.0101(2),(6)–(8)). - Broad administrative discretion: licence suspensions and revocations based on “reasonable grounds to suspect” may vary by province; appeals add workload to courts and police (Firearms Act ss. 69.1–70.3; 72(4)–(10)). - Economic impact on lawful owners and retailers: stopping new handgun registrations and limiting transfers may reduce sales and asset liquidity; no compensation mechanism in the bill text (Firearms Act s. 12.2; s. 27). Data unavailable. - Vagueness in advertising offence (“depicts, counsels or promotes violence”) could chill lawful marketing; scope will depend on future enforcement and any guidance (Firearms Act “Advertising” offence). - Prospective prohibition on certain future semi-automatic designs and undefined “firearm parts” to be set by regulation may create compliance uncertainty until regulations are issued (Criminal Code s. 84(1)(e) and “firearm part”). - New IRPA inadmissibility for “prescribed” offences relies on regulations; without a set list, scope and consistency at the border are uncertain (IRPA s. 36(2.1); Immigration Regulations s. 19).

Boosts Rental Rebate, Toughens Competition Law

## Summary Bill C-56 (Affordable Housing and Groceries Act) changes two laws. It boosts the GST rebate for new purpose-built rental housing for a limited time. It also strengthens competition rules to address anti-competitive conduct and allow market-wide inquiries. - Enhances the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate for qualifying new rental projects started after September 13, 2023 and completed before 2036 (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)–(3.2)). - Blocks “efficiencies” defences in reviewable agreements and mergers by repealing key exceptions (Competition Act s.90.1(4)–(6) repealed; s.96 repealed). - Lets the Competition Bureau run market or industry inquiries with public input and deadlines up to 18 months (Competition Act new s.10.1(1)–(6)). - Expands abuse-of-dominance tools, including orders for divestiture, higher penalties, and new factors like network effects and consumer privacy (Competition Act s.79(1)–(4), (6)). - Allows orders against agreements that lessen competition even if the parties are not current competitors (Competition Act s.90.1(1.1), (11)). - Identifies “excessive and unfair selling prices” as an anti-competitive act (Competition Act s.78(1)(k)). ## What it means for you - Households and renters - The GST on qualifying new purpose-built rental housing is effectively rebated in full at the project level, which can lower total project costs. This applies to construction that begins after September 13, 2023 and before 2031, and is substantially completed before 2036 (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)–(3.2)). Impact on rents is not mandated by the bill. - Builders and developers of rental housing - Eligible projects receive a rebate equal to the GST paid on purchase/self-supply, calculated as A × B, where A is the total GST under s.165(1) and B is 1 for condo units or the unit’s share of total floor space otherwise (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.2)). - Applies to sales to non-builders and to certain builder self-supplies and conversions that meet the start and completion timelines (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)). - The measure is deemed in force as of September 14, 2023 (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(4)). - Public service bodies (e.g., municipalities, charities, non-profits) - Prevents “double dipping” between the enhanced rental rebate and the public service body rebate under s.259; you cannot claim the same tax twice (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(9.1)). - Businesses, retailers, suppliers, and platforms - Market or industry inquiries: The Competition Bureau can launch or be directed to launch inquiries, publish terms of reference for public comment (≥15 days), and issue a public report within up to 18 months, with possible 3‑month extensions (Competition Act s.10.1(1)–(6)). You can be ordered by a court to provide records, data, or testimony (s.11 as amended). - Draft report review: If you were compelled under s.11, you receive a draft and have 3 working days to flag factual errors or confidential information (Competition Act s.10.1(7)). - Agreements that lessen competition: The Tribunal can order remedies even if the parties are not current competitors, if a significant purpose of the agreement is to lessen competition; “competitor” also includes likely future competitors absent the agreement (Competition Act s.90.1(1.1), (11)). - Abuse of dominance: The Tribunal can prohibit conduct, order divestitures if needed to restore competition, and impose administrative monetary penalties up to CAD $25,000,000 (and up to $35,000,000 for subsequent orders) (Competition Act s.79(1)–(3.1)). New assessment factors include network effects, non-price competition (quality, choice, consumer privacy), and innovation (s.79(4)). Limitation period is 3 years after the conduct ceases (s.79(6)). - “Excessive and unfair selling prices” are listed as an anti-competitive act, which can support abuse-of-dominance cases (Competition Act s.78(1)(k)). - Companies planning mergers or collaborations - The efficiencies defence in merger and agreement reviews is repealed (Competition Act s.96 repealed; s.90.1(4)–(6) repealed). Transitional rules apply to transactions notified before the new provisions take effect or substantially completed before that date (Competition Act Transitional Provision re ss.92 and 96). - If Bill C-59 also takes effect, the Tribunal may order payments up to the value of the benefit from the conduct, distributed to private applicants and affected persons, in certain abuse-of-dominance cases (coordinating amendment to Competition Act s.79(4.1)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key fiscal elements - The bill enhances a GST rebate for qualifying new rental projects, which reduces federal GST revenue for eligible projects (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)–(3.2)). Data unavailable. - The bill contains no explicit dollar appropriations. It allows market inquiries, which will entail administrative costs for the Competition Bureau and related legal processes. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - The housing rebate removes the 5% federal GST burden on qualifying new purpose-built rental projects, which can improve project feasibility and spur rental supply (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.2), referencing tax under s.165(1)). - Clear timelines (start after September 13, 2023 and before 2031; completion before 2036) focus the incentive on near-term construction (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)). - Preventing overlapping public service body rebates ensures fiscal integrity and avoids duplicate claims (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(9.1)). - Market/industry inquiries with public terms and deadlines improve transparency and let the Bureau study sectors like groceries and report within 18 months (Competition Act s.10.1(3)–(6)). - Stronger dominance rules, including divestiture and high penalties up to $25,000,000/$35,000,000, deter harmful conduct and help restore competition (Competition Act s.79(2)–(3.1)). - Repealing efficiencies defences and covering non-competitor agreements close gaps that previously allowed harmful deals to proceed despite anti-competitive effects (Competition Act s.90.1(1.1), repeal of s.90.1(4)–(6), repeal of s.96). ## Opponents' View - The housing rebate may create windfalls for projects that would proceed anyway, with no guarantee of lower rents for tenants; the bill does not require pass-through of savings (Excise Tax Act s.256.2(3.1)–(3.2)). Assumption flagged. - Fiscal costs are uncertain and could be large over the 2023–2036 window, reducing funds for other housing or social programs. Data unavailable. - Broad competition powers risk business uncertainty: “excessive and unfair” pricing is not defined in the bill, which may chill aggressive but lawful pricing by dominant firms (Competition Act s.78(1)(k)). Assumption flagged. - Market inquiries can impose compliance burdens and confidentiality risks; the 3‑day window to review draft findings may be too short to correct errors (Competition Act s.10.1(7)). Assumption flagged. - Repealing efficiencies defences may block mergers or agreements that lower costs or improve innovation, even if savings could benefit consumers (Competition Act repeal of s.96; s.90.1(4)–(6) repealed). Assumption flagged. - Allowing orders against non-competitor agreements could deter legitimate vertical arrangements (e.g., supply or distribution) if authorities infer an anti-competitive purpose (Competition Act s.90.1(1.1)). Assumption flagged.

Tougher Neglect Rules for Long-Term Care

## Summary This bill changes the Criminal Code to address neglect of adults in long‑term care. It creates a clear legal duty for long‑term care facility owners and officers to ensure residents get the “necessaries of life” (basic needs such as food, shelter, and care). It lets courts ban convicted owners or officers from working or volunteering with vulnerable adults, and it adds a sentencing factor for organizations that fail a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults. The law takes effect 30 days after it receives royal assent (Coming into Force). - Creates a new criminal duty for owners and officers of long‑term care facilities to ensure residents receive necessaries of life (amending Criminal Code s.215(1)(b.1)). - Sets the offence threshold: the failure must endanger life or cause, or be likely to cause, permanent injury to health (amending s.215(2)(b)). - Allows courts to order bans on working or volunteering with vulnerable adults; breach of the order is a new offence with up to 4 years in prison (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(4)). - Requires courts to consider any provincial penalties already imposed when deciding a ban (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)). - Adds a sentencing factor for organizations that failed a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults (adding s.718.21(a.1)). - Defines “long‑term care facility” and “officer” for clarity (definitions added to s.214). ## What it means for you - Households and residents - Owners and officers of long‑term care homes now have a specific criminal duty to ensure residents receive basic needs. Police and prosecutors can use this duty in neglect cases that meet the harm threshold (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)). - If an owner or officer is convicted or conditionally discharged for such neglect, a court may ban them from jobs or volunteer roles involving trust or authority over vulnerable adults, for any period the court finds appropriate (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(2)). - The law takes effect 30 days after royal assent (Coming into Force). - Workers in long‑term care - Front‑line staff are not named by the new “officer” definition unless they hold officer roles. “Officer” includes roles like board chair, president, vice‑president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller, general counsel, general manager, managing director, or similar functions, or anyone designated as an officer (definition of “officer,” s.214). - Workplace policies may change as facilities work to ensure compliance. Data unavailable. - Owners, boards, and senior leaders of long‑term care facilities - You face criminal exposure if you fail to ensure residents receive necessaries of life and that failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)). - On conviction or discharge, you may be prohibited from working or volunteering with vulnerable adults; violating that order is a separate offence punishable by up to 4 years’ imprisonment on indictment, or by summary conviction (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(4)). - Courts will also consider, for organizational sentencing, whether your organization failed a legal duty owed to vulnerable adults (s.718.21(a.1)). - Provincial regulators and local governments - When deciding any prohibition order, courts must consider penalties or measures already imposed under provincial laws or policies meant to protect vulnerable adults (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or federal cost estimate identified. Data unavailable. - The bill makes criminal law changes and creates no direct appropriations or fees (Bill text). - Possible impacts on enforcement, courts, and corrections are not quantified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Clarifies accountability at the top: Adds an explicit duty for owners and officers of long‑term care facilities to ensure residents get basic needs (s.215(1)(b.1)), addressing institutional neglect at the leadership level (Bill: s.215(1)(b.1)). - Targets serious harm: Ties criminal liability to cases where failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury, focusing on the most severe neglect (s.215(2)(b)). - Prevents repeat harm: Allows courts to ban convicted owners or officers from jobs or volunteer roles with vulnerable adults, with flexible duration (Prohibition order, subsections (1)–(2)). - Respects provincial action: Requires courts to take into account penalties or measures already imposed under provincial regimes when deciding a prohibition order, reducing duplication (Prohibition order, subsection (1.1)). - Strengthens sentencing for organizations: Makes failure of a legal duty to vulnerable adults an aggravating factor, which can lead to tougher sentences for organizations (s.718.21(a.1)). ## Opponents' View - High harm threshold: The offence applies only if the failure endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury (s.215(2)(b)); critics say many cases of neglect may not meet this bar and thus see no change. - Overlap and complexity: Courts must weigh provincial penalties (subsection (1.1)), which could create uneven outcomes across provinces and add procedural complexity. - Enforcement challenges: Proving that owners or officers “failed to ensure” necessaries of life and that this failure caused the specified harm may be difficult in large institutions with many actors (s.215(1)(b.1), s.215(2)(b)). - Limited scope of who is covered: The new duty targets owners and “officers” as defined; front‑line staff are not directly included, which some argue leaves gaps in accountability (definition of “officer,” s.214). - Risk of unintended staffing effects: Greater criminal exposure for officers may deter qualified leaders from serving in long‑term care. Data unavailable.

Environmental Rights and Court Access for Canadians

## Summary This bill would create a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. It sets out a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and expands public access to information, participation, and courts on federal environmental matters. It also amends three federal laws to allow broader public petitions and court review, and to add a right to a healthy environment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. - Creates a legal right for every resident to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Part 1). - Requires federal decision-makers and courts to interpret laws using precaution, polluter‑pays, sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and environmental justice (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law). - Lets residents request ministerial investigations of alleged environmental offences under federal laws, with 20‑day acknowledgment and 90‑day progress reports (Part 2; ss. 12–14). - Allows residents to bring “environmental protection actions” seeking court orders to stop or repair significant harm, even if not personally affected (Part 3; s. 17). - Expands access to judicial review in Federal Court for environmental matters by people not directly affected, subject to tests (Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). - Protects federal public servants from reprisals for using these rights; sets fines up to CAD $25,000 for employer violations (Part 4). ## What it means for you - Households and residents: - You would have a stated right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Part 1). - You could access environmental information on a reasonable, timely, and affordable basis (Part 1, Right to access information). - You could participate in federal environmental decision‑making, including on laws, regulations, and policies (Part 1, Right to public participation). - You could ask the Auditor General to review federal environmental laws, instruments, or policies (Part 1; Auditor General Act s. 22(1)). - You could apply to a responsible Minister to investigate alleged offences under federal environmental laws, excluding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Part 2; “Act of Parliament” definition; s. 12). - You could bring a court action to stop or prevent significant environmental harm and seek orders to restore the environment. You would not receive damages, but courts could order payments toward environmental protection or restoration (Part 3; s. 17(3)). - You would not need to show you are directly affected to bring a case; the government could not deny you standing on that sole ground (Part 1, Right of access to courts (2)). - Workers (federal public service): - Your employer could not punish you for using rights under this Act, helping an investigation, or giving evidence. A breach would be an offence with a fine up to CAD $25,000 (Part 4; Penalty (3)). - Terms “employer” and “employee” follow the Public Service Employment Act, so this protection applies to federal public servants (Part 4 (1)). - Community groups and NGOs: - You could seek judicial review of environmental decisions even if not directly affected, if you raise a serious issue, have a genuine interest, and there is no other reasonable or effective way to get the matter before the court (Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). - Courts may allow broader participation by interested persons in environmental protection actions (Part 3; Other participants). - Businesses and project proponents: - You could face court actions seeking orders to stop activities likely to cause significant harm, or to require restoration plans and payments for environmental protection (Part 3; s. 17(3)). - Courts can issue interim orders. Plaintiffs’ undertakings to pay damages for such orders are capped at CAD $1,000 (Part 3; Undertakings to pay damages (3)). - Defences include due diligence, unavoidable harm from authorized conduct with no reasonable alternative, and officially induced mistake of law (Part 3; Defences). - Actions are limited to alleged contraventions of federal environmental laws other than the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Part 2 Definitions; applies to Part 3). Harm must be “significant” and is judged on a balance of probabilities (Part 3; Standard of proof; s. 17(2)). - Federal departments and agencies: - Ministers must acknowledge investigation requests within 20 days and report progress every 90 days until completion or lawful discontinuance with reasons (Part 2; ss. 13–16). - The Attorney General may receive evidence from ministers during investigations and may intervene or appeal in environmental protection actions (Part 2; Part 3, Attorney General to be served). - All federal enactments must be read consistently with listed environmental law principles (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law). - The Canadian Bill of Rights would state that the right to life, liberty, and security includes a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 1(a) amendment). - Courts and tribunals: - Must not deny standing to residents solely because they are not directly affected in environmental matters (Part 1, Right of access to courts (2); Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). - May shift the burden to defendants once plaintiffs show a prima facie case of significant harm (Part 3; Prima facie case). - May stay or dismiss actions if the public interest so requires, considering environmental, health, safety, economic, and social concerns (Part 3; Stay or dismissal). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriation amounts are specified in the bill. Data unavailable. - New mandates: Ministers must process and investigate public applications and issue 90‑day progress reports (Part 2; ss. 12–14). - Auditor General petitions expanded to include reviews of federal environmental laws, instruments, and policies (Auditor General Act s. 22(1)). - Courts may see more environmental applications due to broadened standing (Part 1; Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). Data unavailable. - Penalties: Employer reprisals are an offence with fines up to CAD $25,000 (Part 4; Penalty (3)). Revenue impact, if any, is not estimated. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Strengthens accountability by letting any resident bring environmental matters to courts and tribunals, reducing time spent on standing fights (Part 1, Right of access to courts (1)–(2)). - Improves transparency and oversight through petitions to the Auditor General to review federal environmental laws and policies (Auditor General Act s. 22(1); Part 1, Right to request review). - Creates clear timelines for ministerial investigations (20‑day acknowledgment; 90‑day progress reports), which may speed up enforcement (Part 2; ss. 13–14). - Enables timely prevention of harm via interim and final court orders, including orders to restore the environment and to fund protection programs (Part 3; s. 17(3)). - Embeds precautionary and polluter‑pays principles into how all federal enactments are interpreted, which proponents say will prevent serious or irreversible damage (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law). - Protects public servants who report environmental concerns, which may increase reporting and compliance (Part 4; Reprisal — offence; Penalty (3)). - Adds a right to a healthy environment to the Canadian Bill of Rights, signaling that environmental quality is linked to life, liberty, and security (Canadian Bill of Rights s. 1(a) amendment). Assumes courts will give this amendment meaningful weight; actual impact depends on case law. ## Opponents' View - Could increase litigation against businesses and the federal government due to broader standing and low cost risk for plaintiffs; costs can be awarded against plaintiffs only if actions are frivolous or vexatious (Part 3; Costs (2); Federal Courts Act s. 18.1(1.1)). Assumes a high volume of filings; actual numbers are unknown. - Interim injunction risk may rise because plaintiffs’ undertakings are capped at CAD $1,000, which may not cover project delay costs (Part 3; Undertakings to pay damages (3)). - Mandated interpretation of “every enactment” using environmental principles may create legal uncertainty across many statutes and regulations (Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law). Assumes courts will reinterpret existing regimes; outcomes depend on judicial application. - New investigation duties (20‑day acknowledgment; 90‑day reports) could strain departmental resources without new funding, causing backlogs (Part 2; ss. 13–14). No funding is specified; workload impacts are not quantified. - Scope and overlap risks: The process excludes the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which could confuse the public and lead to parallel processes (Part 2 Definitions applying to Part 3). - Federal‑provincial friction is possible because environment is a shared area; broader federal court actions may intersect with provincial approvals. The bill does not address coordination mechanisms. Data unavailable.

Sex Offender Registry and Publication Ban Reforms

## Summary This bill updates Canada’s Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. It sets clearer rules for when people convicted of sexual offences must register, adds tools to enforce SOIRA, and clarifies how publication bans can be made, changed, or removed. It also requires courts to ask victims if they want information about the offender’s sentence and share contact details with Correctional Service of Canada. - Mandatory SOIRA registration for child sexual offences and repeat sexual offenders; a presumption to register others unless strict exceptions apply (Criminal Code 490.012(1)–(4)). - Lifetime registration only if offences show a pattern that increases the risk of reoffending, with options to vary duration in defined cases (Criminal Code 490.013(3)–(6)). - Police can seek a warrant to arrest someone who breaches SOIRA duties and bring them to a registration centre to fix it (Criminal Code 490.03121). - Clearer travel-notice rules for registered offenders, with a “reasonable excuse” exception when 14-day advance notice is not possible (SOIRA s.6(1), 6(1.01), 6(1.02)). - Victims and witnesses get clearer say on publication bans and easier ways to vary or revoke them; limits on prosecuting survivors for breaches (Criminal Code 486.4–486.6). - Courts must ask if victims want sentence information and must send victim contact details to CSC when they do (Criminal Code s. 726.2 [Inquiry by court], 743.2). ## What it means for you - Timing - Some sections take effect on dates set by the Governor in Council; exact dates are not in the text provided (Coming into Force). Data unavailable. - Households and victims - You can ask to vary or revoke a publication ban more easily. Judges and prosecutors must confirm your wishes and tell you about your rights and any orders made (Criminal Code 486.4(3.1), (3.2); 486.5(5.1), (8.1), (8.2)). - You may speak privately about your own identity to trusted people (for example, your lawyer or health provider) without breaching a ban, if you are not making the information public (Criminal Code 486.4(5); 486.5(3.1)). - If you want information about the sentence or its administration, the court must record this and send your contact details to CSC (Criminal Code s. 726.2 [Inquiry by court]; 743.2). - Limits apply before prosecuting a person who is under a publication ban: the breach must be knowing, must compromise another protected person’s privacy, and a warning must be inappropriate (Criminal Code 486.6(1.1)). - People convicted of sexual offences - If convicted of a sexual offence against a child, or if you have prior qualifying sexual convictions or obligations, the court must order you to comply with SOIRA (Criminal Code 490.012(1)–(2)). - In other sexual offence cases, the court must order SOIRA unless you prove there is no link to SOIRA’s public-safety purpose or the impact on you would be grossly disproportionate (Criminal Code 490.012(3)–(4)). - For “secondary offences,” SOIRA applies only if the prosecutor proves you committed it with intent to commit a “primary” sexual offence (Criminal Code 490.012(5); 490.011(1) definitions). - Lifetime orders apply if multiple offences in the same case show a pattern and increased risk of reoffending, or if you have prior qualifying convictions/obligations (Criminal Code 490.013(3), (5)–(6)). Courts must give reasons (Criminal Code 490.014). - Registered sex offenders (SOIRA obligations) - Travel/absence notice: give at least 14 days’ notice before being away from your main or secondary residence for 7+ consecutive days, with detailed addresses or locations. If plans change after departure, notify within 7 days (Canada) or without delay (outside Canada). If a reasonable excuse prevents 14 days’ notice, you must notify as soon as feasible before departure (SOIRA s.6(1)(a)–(b), 6(1.01)(a)–(d), 6(1.02)). - Police may seek a warrant to arrest you and bring you to a registration centre if they believe you breached SOIRA reporting duties. If you fix the breach after the warrant issues, no charge shall be laid for that breach (Criminal Code 490.03121(1), (5)). - Information in the SOIRA database is retained up to 50 years after death, unless removed due to termination or exemption (SOIRA s.15(1)–(3)). - People with foreign convictions or transfers to Canada - If you arrive in Canada and were convicted or found NCR abroad for an offence equivalent to a “primary” sexual offence, you must advise a police service within 7 days and provide required details (Criminal Code 490.02911(1), (1.1)). - You may apply for an exemption or to vary a life-duration obligation in defined circumstances, including for older obligations, with required reasons from the court; RCMP must remove data if an exemption is granted (Criminal Code 490.02905, 490.029051; 490.04, 490.05; SOIRA s.8.1(3)–(4), 15(2)–(3); International Transfer of Offenders Act 36.1, 36.2). - Police and courts - Police can access SOIRA data to verify compliance, obtain warrants for SOIRA breaches, and execute them anywhere in Canada (SOIRA s.16(2)(b), 16(4)(c)(i.1), (iv); Criminal Code 490.03121(3)). - Judges and prosecutors have new duties to check and record victims’ wishes on publication bans and to inform them of rights and orders (Criminal Code 486.4(2)–(3.2); 486.5(5.1), (8.1), (8.2)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Fiscal information - No official fiscal note found in the provided materials. Data unavailable. - The bill creates new duties for police, prosecutors, courts, CSC, and RCMP database administration. Quantified costs or savings are not provided. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Targets highest-risk cases with mandatory SOIRA for child sexual offences and repeat offenders, and requires proof of intent for secondary offences to be included (Criminal Code 490.012(1)–(2), (5)). - Focuses lifetime orders on people who show a pattern and increased risk, avoiding automatic lifetime consequences for multiple counts in one proceeding unless risk is shown (Criminal Code 490.013(3)–(6)). - Improves enforcement by allowing warrants to bring non-compliant registrants to a centre to remedy breaches, reducing gaps in the registry’s accuracy (Criminal Code 490.03121). - Strengthens victim choice and information: courts must ask victims about receiving sentence updates and must share contact details with CSC; victims can seek to vary or revoke publication bans more easily (Criminal Code s. 726.2; 743.2; 486.4–486.5). - Clarifies travel-notice rules so police can monitor movements tied to risk, while adding a reasonable-excuse safety valve for short-notice situations (SOIRA s.6(1), 6(1.01), 6(1.02)). - Provides clear off-ramps (exemption/variation/termination) when SOIRA would have no public-safety link or would be grossly disproportionate, with listed factors for courts to weigh (Criminal Code 490.012(3)–(4); 490.016; 490.027; 490.02905; 490.02909; 490.02913). ## Opponents' View - Privacy impact: SOIRA data retention up to 50 years after death may be excessive relative to public-safety needs; removal depends on exemptions or terminations (SOIRA s.15(1)–(3)). - Compliance burden: 14‑day advance travel notices, multiple updates, and detailed location reporting may be hard for people with unstable housing or sudden travel needs, risking technical breaches (SOIRA s.6(1), 6(1.01)). - Due process concerns: In applications to vary or revoke publication bans, the accused cannot make submissions, which could raise fairness questions in some cases (Criminal Code “Submissions (6)” after 486.5). - Enforcement risks: New arrest warrants to “remedy” SOIRA breaches expand police powers and could lead to inconsistent use across regions; no public cost or oversight metrics are provided (Criminal Code 490.03121). Data unavailable. - Implementation load: New duties for judges, prosecutors, police, CSC, and RCMP database managers may strain resources without added funding, risking delays or uneven application (Criminal Code 486.4–486.5, s. 726.2; 743.2; SOIRA s.16). Data unavailable.

Greener Materials for Federal Buildings

## Summary This bill changes the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to guide how the federal government sets requirements for building, maintaining, and repairing its buildings and other public works. It requires the Minister to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and other environmental benefits, and it permits the use of wood or any other material that achieves those benefits (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). It does not force the use of wood and does not set targets. - Requires the Minister to consider potential GHG reductions and environmental benefits when setting project requirements (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Lets the Minister allow wood or other materials that deliver those benefits; it does not mandate them (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Applies to construction, maintenance, and repair of federal public works, real property, and “immovables” (property in Quebec civil law) (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Does not amend building codes, safety rules, or procurement law beyond this consideration step. - Sets a broad scope by including “any other thing” (e.g., material, product, sustainable resource) that yields environmental benefits (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct change. This affects federal projects and contracts, not private homes (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Workers - Construction trades working on federal projects may see more bids that consider lower‑emission materials. Training or methods could shift by project, but nothing is mandated (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable on scale. - Forestry and wood-product workers could see more opportunities if project requirements permit mass timber or other wood uses. This depends on project-by-project choices (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable. - Businesses - Building material suppliers (wood, concrete, steel, low‑carbon products) may face new evaluation criteria focused on GHG impacts and environmental benefits. No material gets an automatic preference (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Federal contractors may need to document environmental benefits of proposed materials to meet requirement-setting considerations. Exact documentation standards are not defined in the bill. Data unavailable. - Federal departments and agencies - When developing project requirements, officials must consider GHG reductions and other environmental benefits and may allow materials that achieve them, including wood (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Internal procurement policies and design guides may need updates to reflect this consideration step. The bill does not prescribe a method or metric. Data unavailable. - Local and provincial/territorial governments - No direct change. The bill applies to federal public works. It does not change provincial/territorial or municipal building codes or procurement rules. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill makes a policy change but contains no direct spending or appropriations (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - Possible administrative costs to update requirement-setting policies and to evaluate environmental benefits are not quantified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Adds a clear duty to consider GHG reductions in federal project requirements, aligning procurement with climate goals without mandating any one material (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Enables use of wood and other lower‑emission materials where appropriate, potentially lowering emissions from construction and maintenance activities (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Extent depends on project choices. Data unavailable. - Keeps flexibility by covering “any other thing” that delivers environmental benefits, allowing innovation and competition among materials and products (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Avoids legal or safety conflicts because it does not override building codes or force a specific material; it only guides requirement development (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - May support domestic industries that can demonstrate environmental benefits, including advanced wood products, without creating a mandated preference (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Data unavailable. ## Opponents' View - Mostly symbolic: the Minister “shall consider” but only “may allow” materials; there are no targets, metrics, or required outcomes, so practices may not change (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Vague terms like “any other thing” and “environmental benefits” are undefined, which could lead to inconsistent evaluations or disputes in procurement (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). - Could add time and administrative burden to develop and defend requirement decisions focused on environmental benefits, without added resources. Costs and delays are not quantified. Data unavailable. - Risk of de facto favoritism if stakeholders interpret the change as a signal to prefer wood, potentially disadvantaging other materials even when they perform better on cost or durability in some cases (Bill, new s.7(1.1)). Evidence on frequency or impact is not provided. Data unavailable. - Without a standard method to measure GHG reductions, agencies may rely on varied tools or claims, raising concerns about “greenwashing” and uneven oversight. The bill does not set methods or verification (Bill, new s.7(1.1)).

Ban on Federal COVID Vaccine Mandates

## Summary This bill would bar the federal government in Canada from imposing COVID-19 vaccination mandates for federal public servants, for workers through federal regulations, and for passengers on federally regulated air, rail, and marine travel. It amends five federal laws to set these limits in permanent law. It applies only to COVID-19 vaccines. - Federal public service could not require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment or penalize employees solely for not being vaccinated (Financial Administration Act amendment). - No federal regulation under the Canada Labour Code could require workers in federally regulated sectors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). - Federal measures could not deny boarding of planes, trains, or vessels solely due to lack of COVID-19 vaccination (Aeronautics Act, Railway Safety Act, Canada Shipping Act amendments). - The limits are specific to vaccination status; other health measures (e.g., testing, masking) are not addressed. - The bill constrains federal actions; it does not change provincial or territorial rules. ## What it means for you - **Households and travelers:** You could not be denied boarding of federally regulated flights, interprovincial trains, or vessels solely because you are not vaccinated against COVID-19, if this bill becomes law (Aeronautics Act limitation after s.4.74; Railway Safety Act limitation after s.47.2; Canada Shipping Act s.120(1.1), s.136(1.1)). Other requirements, such as testing or masking, could still apply under other authorities because the bill only bars rules based solely on vaccination status. - **Federal public servants:** The Treasury Board could not make COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment. It could not terminate you, suspend you, or reduce your pay solely because you are not vaccinated against COVID-19 (Financial Administration Act s.11.1(2)(a.1)). - **Workers in federally regulated sectors (e.g., banks, airlines, telecom, interprovincial transport):** No regulation under the Canada Labour Code could require you to get a COVID-19 vaccine as a term of employment (Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). The bill does not address policies made by individual employers outside of federal regulations. - **Transport operators and federally regulated businesses:** You could not rely on federal regulations or orders to require passenger COVID-19 vaccination as a condition to board. Federal regulators would be barred from issuing such measures (Aeronautics Act, Railway Safety Act, Canada Shipping Act limitations). For workplaces, the federal government could not use Labour Code regulations to impose COVID-19 vaccination on your employees (Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). The bill does not state rules for your own internal policies. - **Provinces, territories, and local governments:** No direct change. The bill does not limit provincial or territorial laws or policies. It only restricts federal instruments. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Appropriations in bill text: None identified (Bill text). - Administrative or implementation costs to revise policies and regulations: Data unavailable. - Enforcement costs or savings: Data unavailable. - Revenue effects: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Protects federal employees from job loss or pay penalties based solely on COVID-19 vaccination status by limiting Treasury Board powers (Financial Administration Act s.11.1(2)(a.1)). - Ensures access to federally regulated travel regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status by banning federal rules that deny boarding on that single ground (Aeronautics Act limitation after s.4.74; Railway Safety Act limitation after s.47.2; Canada Shipping Act s.120(1.1), s.136(1.1)). - Prevents future federal regulations that would require COVID-19 vaccination for workers in federally regulated sectors, giving certainty to employees and employers (Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). - Targets only COVID-19 vaccination status and only “solely” on that ground, leaving room for other health measures like testing if needed (transport and workplace limitation clauses). - Puts limits into statute rather than temporary orders, creating a clear, lasting rule for future emergencies (Bill structure and permanent amendments). ## Opponents' View - Reduces federal flexibility to respond to future COVID-19 waves by removing vaccination requirements as a tool in transport and workplaces, even if conditions worsen (Aeronautics/Railway/Shipping limitations; Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). - May increase exposure risk for passengers and workers by barring vaccination-based access rules; this assumes vaccines reduce transmission and severe outcomes in settings covered by the bill (Assumption noted; bill text does not address alternative controls). - Could hinder occupational health and safety strategies in federally regulated sectors if regulators cannot use vaccination requirements as one control measure (Canada Labour Code s.157(2)). - Creates uneven rules across jurisdictions, since provinces or private entities may still set their own policies, leading to confusion for workers and travelers (Scope limited to federal instruments). - Implementation risk: regulators may need to amend or repeal any existing federal instruments that rely on vaccination status; the bill provides no timelines or resources for this transition (Data unavailable).

Tougher Rules for Parole Breaches and Sentencing

## Summary This bill changes the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to create a new crime for breaching conditions of parole, statutory release, or temporary absence when the person was convicted of a Schedule I or II offence (serious violent or drug offences), and to require parole supervisors to report such breaches to key authorities. It also narrows who can get a conditional sentence (serving a sentence in the community) by excluding people convicted of certain serious offences. - Creates a new offence for breaching parole or statutory release conditions for Schedule I/II offenders, with up to 2 years in jail on indictment (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). - Requires parole supervisors to report qualifying breaches to the Parole Board of Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, the Attorney General, and police (CCRA new reporting duty, before s.135). - Bars conditional sentences for offences with maximums of 14 years or life (indictable), certain 10‑year maximum offences that caused bodily harm, involved drugs, or used a weapon, and a list of specified indictable offences (Criminal Code s.742.1(c),(e),(f)). - Likely shifts some sentences from community supervision to custody; exact numbers are not provided in the bill. Data unavailable. - Takes effect on Royal Assent (no separate coming-into-force clause stated). ## What it means for you - Households - Public safety agencies may respond more often to reported breaches by higher-risk offenders, because parole supervisors must notify police and the Attorney General about qualifying breaches (CCRA new reporting duty). - People on conditional release or long‑term supervision for Schedule I/II offences - New criminal offence if you “fail or refuse to comply, without reasonable excuse,” with a condition of parole, statutory release (mandatory release near the two‑thirds point), long‑term supervision, or temporary absence (Criminal Code s.145(5.1); CCRA new reporting duty). - Penalties: indictable offence up to 2 years’ imprisonment; or summary conviction (typically up to 2 years less a day and/or fine, unless otherwise provided) (Criminal Code s.145(5.1), s.787(1)). - Your parole supervisor must report any breach and its circumstances to the Parole Board of Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, the Attorney General, and police (CCRA new reporting duty). - People being sentenced - You cannot receive a conditional sentence (serve in the community) if: - The offence, prosecuted by indictment, has a maximum penalty of 14 years or life (Criminal Code s.742.1(c)). - The offence, prosecuted by indictment, has a 10‑year maximum and: - resulted in bodily harm, or - involved the import, export, trafficking, or production of drugs, or - involved the use of a weapon (Criminal Code s.742.1(e)). - The offence, prosecuted by indictment, is one of the following: prison breach (s.144), criminal harassment (s.264), sexual assault (s.271), kidnapping (s.279), material benefit—trafficking (s.279.02), abduction of person under 14 (s.281), motor vehicle theft (s.333.1), theft over $5,000 (s.334(a)), break and enter (non‑dwelling) (s.348(1)(e)), unlawfully in a dwelling‑house (s.349), arson for fraudulent purpose (s.435) (Criminal Code s.742.1(f)). - If barred from a conditional sentence, you must serve the sentence in custody or under another fit sentence allowed by law. - Parole supervisors - New legal duty to report qualifying breaches to the Parole Board of Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, the Attorney General, and police, including the circumstances (CCRA new reporting duty). - This is in addition to existing powers related to suspension, termination, and revocation processes (CCRA s.135 and following). - Police and prosecutors - You will receive reports of breaches from parole supervisors for Schedule I/II offenders and may proceed with charges under the new offence (Criminal Code s.145(5.1); CCRA new reporting duty). - Courts and corrections (federal and provincial/territorial) - Courts may see more breach cases to adjudicate; community‑sentence eligibility narrows for listed offences. Data unavailable. - Custodial populations may increase if fewer people qualify for conditional sentences. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Potential cost drivers (not quantified in the bill or public fiscal notes): - Additional policing, prosecution, legal aid, and court time from the new breach offence (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). Data unavailable. - Increased correctional costs if fewer conditional sentences result in more custody, especially for sentences under 2 years served in provincial/territorial facilities (Criminal Code s.742.1(c),(e),(f)). Data unavailable. - Administrative workload for parole supervisors and the Parole Board of Canada from mandatory reporting (CCRA new reporting duty). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves public safety by making breaches of release conditions for higher‑risk offenders a clear criminal offence with defined penalties, creating stronger accountability (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). - Ensures timely information‑sharing: mandatory reporting of breaches to police and the Attorney General supports faster enforcement and decision‑making (CCRA new reporting duty). - Limits community sentences for serious crimes by excluding offences with maximums of 14 years or life, certain 10‑year maximum offences involving harm, drugs, or weapons, and specified serious offences (Criminal Code s.742.1(c),(e),(f)). - Provides clearer, uniform consequences for non‑compliance with conditions, which proponents argue can deter breaches (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). - Aligns sentence type with offence seriousness by reserving conditional sentences for less serious crimes, as defined in the amended lists (Criminal Code s.742.1(c),(e),(f)). ## Opponents' View - Criminalizes “administrative” breaches (such as missing curfew or appointments) for a subset of offenders, which could increase incarceration without a new underlying crime, adding pressure to courts and jails (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). Data unavailable. - Mandatory reporting to police and the Attorney General may reduce case‑by‑case discretion of parole officers and duplicate existing suspension/revocation tools, increasing workload without clear benefit (CCRA new reporting duty; existing CCRA s.135 and following). - Narrowing conditional sentences likely shifts more people into custody, with associated costs borne largely by provinces/territories for shorter sentences; no cost estimates are provided (Criminal Code s.742.1(c),(e),(f)). Data unavailable. - Could impede rehabilitation by limiting community‑based sentences, even for some offences without physical violence (e.g., criminal harassment), increasing barriers to employment and family stability. Data unavailable. - The “without reasonable excuse” standard may be applied unevenly, leading to inconsistent enforcement across regions (Criminal Code s.145(5.1)). Data unavailable.

No Assisted Dying for Mental Disorders

## Summary This bill changes Canada’s Criminal Code to make clear that a mental disorder is not a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” for medical assistance in dying (MAID). It would keep people whose sole condition is a mental disorder from being eligible for MAID. The bill includes timing clauses so this rule applies no matter when earlier MAID amendments take effect (Bill s.1; Coordinating Amendments s.2-4; Criminal Code s.241.2). - Makes people with a mental disorder as their only condition ineligible for MAID (Bill s.1). - Leaves MAID rules unchanged for people with physical illnesses that meet the law’s criteria (Criminal Code s.241.2). - Applies on the day it receives Royal Assent, with clauses to resolve timing with the 2021 MAID law (Coordinating Amendments s.2-4). - Signals Parliament’s intent to focus on mental health supports and suicide prevention instead of MAID for mental disorders (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households - If you or a family member has a mental disorder as the only medical condition, you would not be eligible for MAID once this bill becomes law (Bill s.1). - If you or a family member has a physical illness that meets MAID criteria, eligibility is unchanged. Having a mental disorder as an additional diagnosis does not, by itself, block MAID if the physical illness meets the test (Criminal Code s.241.2). - Workers (health professionals) - Physicians and nurse practitioners could not provide or assess MAID when a mental disorder is the sole underlying condition. They would need to direct patients to other care, such as mental health and suicide prevention services (Bill s.1; Preamble). - Providing MAID outside the Criminal Code’s eligibility rules remains a criminal offence, as under current law (Criminal Code s.241). - Businesses and insurers - No direct changes to business operations or insurance coverage are specified. Clinical policies and referral pathways may need updates to reflect the exclusion (Bill s.1). - Provinces, territories, and regulators - MAID programs, forms, and guidance would need updates to reflect the permanent exclusion for mental disorders as a sole condition. Timing clauses aim to avoid gaps with prior MAID amendments (Coordinating Amendments s.2-4). - Timing - The change would take effect on Royal Assent. The coordinating clauses ensure the exclusion applies regardless of the sequence of earlier MAID provisions from 2021 (Coordinating Amendments s.2-4). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points: - The bill creates no new spending program, tax, or fee (Bill text). - No official fiscal note identified. Administrative updates by governments and regulators may be required, but no amounts are stated. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Protects vulnerable people by keeping MAID closed to those with mental disorders as their only condition, and steers them to suicide prevention and mental health supports instead (Preamble). - Addresses assessment limits: determining that a mental disorder is “irremediable” is difficult and often uncertain, which makes safe and consistent MAID decisions hard in these cases (Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness, 2022). - Provides a clear, permanent national rule by writing the exclusion into the Criminal Code and resolving any timing conflicts with earlier MAID amendments (Bill s.1; Coordinating Amendments s.2-4). - Responds to readiness concerns raised in parliamentary reviews about safeguards, training, and system capacity for MAID where mental disorder is the sole condition (Special Joint Committee on MAID, 2023–2024). ## Opponents' View - Creates unequal access by denying MAID to a group based on diagnosis, which some witnesses argued is discriminatory for people with treatment‑resistant mental disorders who experience severe, enduring suffering (Special Joint Committee on MAID, 2023–2024). - Rejects expert advice that favored strict safeguards and case‑by‑case assessments over a blanket ban; the federal Expert Panel recommended detailed standards rather than permanent exclusion (Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness, 2022). - May cause clinical uncertainty in cases with both physical and mental conditions, increasing disputes over whether a mental disorder is the “sole” underlying condition (Expert Panel on MAiD and Mental Illness, 2022). - Could shift pressure onto already stretched mental health services without adding resources, since the bill contains no funding for expanded supports (Bill text; Data unavailable).

Budget Act Delivers Payments, Fees, and Reforms

## Summary Bill C-47 (Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1) puts many 2023 budget measures into law. It affects taxes, benefits, consumer protection, air travel, pensions, anti–money laundering, innovation funding, and more. Several parts take effect on fixed dates; others start after regulations are made. Key practical effects: - Puts cash in some households’ pockets (one‑time extra GST credit for January 2023; faster Canada Workers Benefit (CWB) payments) (Part 1 s.122.5(3.003); new s.122.72). - Raises the Air Travellers Security Charge from tickets purchased after April 2024 (Part 3 Div. 2). - Funds the new Canada Innovation Corporation (CIC) and gives a one‑time $2.0 billion Canada Health Transfer top‑up (Part 4 Div. 7; Div. 8). - Tightens tax reporting (digital platforms; reportable/notifiable tax transactions; uncertain tax treatments) (Part 1 new Part XX; ss.237.3–237.5). - Strengthens consumer protections (single bank complaints body; stronger air passenger rules; lowers criminal interest cap to 35% APR) (Part 4 Div. 1; Div. 23; Div. 34). - Bans cosmetic animal testing and regulates natural health products more like drugs (Part 4 Div. 27–28). ## What it means for you - Households - Extra GST credit equal to double the regular January 2023 payment (already paid) (Part 1 s.122.5(3.003)). - CWB will be paid automatically in advance, quarterly starting with the 2023 tax year (new s.122.72; applies to years beginning after 2022). - Employers must report whether you or your family had access to dental coverage on your T4/T4A for 2023 onward (Div. 29). - Criminal interest cap lowered to 35% APR; government can set a federal limit on payday loan total cost of borrowing (Div. 34). Timing by regulation. - Cosmetic animal testing is prohibited; related marketing claims restricted (in force December 22, 2023) (Div. 28). - Workers and students - Tradespeople’s tools deduction doubled to $1,000 (2023 and later) (Part 1 s.8(1)(s)). - Divorced/separated parents can be joint RESP subscribers; higher Educational Assistance Payment limits (from March 28, 2023) (Part 1 s.146.1). - RDSP “qualifying family member” rule extended 3 years and expanded to siblings (Part 1 s.146.4). - EI seasonal benefit top‑up extended to October 26, 2024 (Part 4 Div. 35). - A new EI Board of Appeal will replace most Social Security Tribunal EI appeals (date by order) (Part 4 Div. 38). - Travellers - Air Travellers Security Charge rises for tickets paid after April 2024 (e.g., domestic one‑way to $9.94; transborder to $16.89; international to $34.42) (Part 3 Div. 2). - Stronger air passenger rules: streamlined complaint process at the Canadian Transportation Agency, higher burden of proof on carriers, and carrier‑funded complaint system (some parts in force September 30, 2023; others by order) (Part 4 Div. 23). - Airlines must route international baggage without delay to the nearest international area; some customs “tele‑presentation” allowed where available (Part 4 Div. 24). - Savers and investors - CRA will receive annual fair market values for RRSPs/RRIFs (from 2023 tax year) (Regulations s.214, s.215). - TFSA set‑off rights clarified; minor technical fixes across registered plans (Part 1 s.146.2). - CRA reassessment periods extended for certain reportable/notifiable transactions and uncertain tax treatments; significant penalties for non‑filing (Part 1 ss.152, 237.3–237.5). - Small businesses and platforms - Digital platforms (goods sales, rentals, ride‑/task‑services) must report seller info and revenues to CRA starting 2024; sellers will also receive summaries (Part 1 new Part XX; in force January 1, 2024). - Cryptoasset mining generally not a taxable supply for GST/HST (no ITCs); applies from February 5, 2022 (Part 2). - Payment card network operator services are taxable for GST/HST starting March 28, 2023 (Part 2). - Bank customers - One not‑for‑profit external complaints body designated for all banks; stronger timelines, reporting and oversight by FCAC (Part 4 Div. 1). - Air and rail users - Rail interswitching at regulated rates extended up to 160 km in MB/SK/AB for 18 months; air carriers must publish performance data (Part 4 Div. 22). - Depositors - Finance Minister may temporarily raise CDIC coverage limit until April 30, 2024 (Part 4 Div. 37). Current limit is $100,000 (sightline only). - Health systems - Provinces/territories receive a one‑time $2.0 billion Canada Health Transfer top‑up (Part 4 Div. 8). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $2.0 billion one‑time (CHT top‑up in 2023‑2024), plus multi‑year funding for the Canada Innovation Corporation; other items largely administrative or revenue‑neutral; several measures raise user fees/taxes. Key figures: - One‑time Canada Health Transfer top‑up: CAD $2.0 billion (allocated by province/territory) (Part 4 Div. 8). - Canada Innovation Corporation statutory payments (subject to appropriation) (Part 4 Div. 7): Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- CIC payment (FY2023‑2024) | $198,000,000 | One‑time | (Div. 7 “Payments out of CRF”) CIC payment (FY2024‑2025) | $775,000,000 | One‑time | (Div. 7) CIC payment (FY2025‑2026) | $800,000,000 | One‑time | (Div. 7) CIC payment (FY2026‑2027) | $800,000,000 | One‑time | (Div. 7) CIC payment (each year thereafter) | $525,000,000 | Annual ongoing | (Div. 7) - Air Travellers Security Charge: rate increases from tickets paid after April 2024; federal revenue effect not stated in the Act (Part 3 Div. 2). Data unavailable. - Excise escalator cap for alcohol at 2% for one year from April 1, 2023; revenue impact not stated in the Act (Part 3 Div. 1). Data unavailable. - Administration/enforcement (e.g., air passenger complaint system; AML regime; CRA reporting): Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Helps with cost of living now: one‑time GST credit boost for January 2023 and faster CWB payments put cash sooner into low‑ and modest‑income households (Part 1 s.122.5(3.003); s.122.72). - Strengthens consumer rights: single bank complaints body with tighter timelines and transparency (Part 4 Div. 1); tougher air passenger rules with a higher burden on airlines and a carrier‑funded complaint system (Part 4 Div. 23). - Curbs predatory lending: lowers the criminal interest rate to 35% APR and enables a federal cap on payday loan total borrowing costs (Part 4 Div. 34). - Supports workers and learners: doubles the tools deduction, modernizes RESPs/RDSPs, and extends EI seasonal relief (Part 1 s.8(1)(s); s.146.1; s.146.4; Part 4 Div. 35). - Invests in innovation and growth: establishes and funds the Canada Innovation Corporation to boost business R&D across sectors and regions (Part 4 Div. 7). - Closes tax gaps and modernizes compliance: platform reporting, reportable/notifiable transactions, uncertain tax treatment reporting, and extended reassessment periods (Part 1 new Part XX; ss.237.3–237.5; s.152). - Advances health and ethics: one‑time $2.0 billion CHT to reduce pressures; bans cosmetic animal testing and increases oversight of natural health products (Part 4 Div. 8; Div. 28; Div. 27). ## Opponents' View - Higher travel costs: the increased Air Travellers Security Charge adds to ticket prices from May 2024 purchase dates (Part 3 Div. 2). Impact on affordability is not quantified in the Act. - Compliance burdens: digital platform reporting, expanded tax‑avoidance reporting, and GST/HST changes may raise costs for small sellers and intermediaries (Part 1 new Part XX; ss.237.3–237.5; Part 2). - Large new spending with limited program detail: Canada Innovation Corporation receives billions over several years before full public program specifics are established (Part 4 Div. 7). - Privacy and oversight concerns: political parties’ privacy rules are set as a separate regime in the Elections Act, potentially weaker than general privacy law (Part 4 Div. 39); employer dental‑coverage T4 reporting expands data collection (Div. 29). - Access to credit: a 35% APR criminal cap may reduce high‑cost credit availability for risky borrowers if lenders exit rather than reprice (Part 4 Div. 34). - Enforcement reach and red tape: new AML offences (e.g., “structuring”), broader information‑sharing, and digital asset seizure powers could raise operational risks and costs for small money services businesses and fintechs (Part 4 Div. 3; Subdivision B). - Uncertain fiscal impacts: several measures (air charge, excise cap, complaint systems) lack published costings in the Act, making budget trade‑offs hard to assess (Data unavailable).

New Discipline System for Federal Judges

## Summary This bill rewrites how Canada handles complaints about the conduct of federally appointed judges. It replaces the Canadian Judicial Council’s (CJC) old inquiry model with a tiered system that can issue remedies short of removal and, when needed, recommend removal to the Minister of Justice. It also covers other federal “good behaviour” office holders and sets clear rules for public hearings, appeals within the system, reporting, and funding. - Creates screening, review, reduced-hearing, full-hearing, and appeal panels, with public hearings by default (Part IV). - Lets panels impose lesser sanctions (warnings, reprimands, apologies, training) when removal is not justified (Part IV, Division 1 – Review Panel Actions). - Includes lay persons on panels and requires diverse rosters, published selection criteria, and annual public reporting (Part IV, Division 1 – Rosters; Division 4 – Annual report). - Allows anonymous complaints in limited cases, with safeguards (Part IV, Division 1 – Complaints). - Centralizes appeals inside the process and limits outside judicial review, with possible leave to the Supreme Court of Canada (Part IV, Division 1 – Appeals and Supreme Court; Division 4 – Decision final). - Pays panel costs and lawyers’ fees from the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF), subject to regulations and guidelines (Financial Provisions). ## What it means for you - Households and court users - You can file a complaint about a federally appointed judge using the CJC’s specified form. Anonymous complaints are allowed but proceed only if two CJC members see grounds that public confidence could be undermined (Part IV, Division 1 – Complaints). - Hearings are public by default. Panels can go private or ban publication if the public interest requires it. Decisions and reasons are published as much as possible (Part IV, Division 1 – Hearings public; Decision and reasons made public). - Complaints that allege sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, or discrimination cannot be dismissed at the screening stage (Part IV, Division 1 – Screening Officer Restriction). - Workers and professionals (judges, prothonotaries, lawyers) - Prothonotaries of the Federal Court are treated as holding “judicial office” for this process (Part IV, Division 1 – Definition of judicial office). - Judges gain due-process rights: to be heard, to cross‑examine witnesses, and to present evidence, with counsel (Part IV, Division 1 – Rights of Judge). - If a full hearing panel finds removal justified, pension calculations change the next day. Contributions pause, but are later reconciled if the decision is overturned or no removal occurs (Part IV, Division 1 – Salaries and Annuities). - Presenting counsel prosecutes the case; judges may have their legal fees paid from the CRF for these proceedings, but not for judicial reviews outside this process (Financial Provisions). - Hearings and appeals may proceed by remote appearance (Division 4 – Remote appearance). - Businesses and media - More decisions and reasons will be public, subject to privacy limits, aiding reporting and compliance training on courtroom conduct (Part IV, Division 1 – Decision and reasons made public). - Provincial and federal governments - The federal Minister or a provincial attorney general can request a full hearing panel to assess whether removal is justified (Division 2 – Requests Concerning Judges). - For other federal “good behaviour” office holders, the Minister may request a full hearing panel, and the Governor in Council may remove by order where permitted (Division 3 – Requests Concerning Office Holders). - Taxpayers - The CRF pays for panel operations, presenting counsel, some defence counsel fees, experts, and hearing costs. The Commissioner sets public guidelines for fees and must justify any differences from Treasury Board norms (Financial Provisions). - An independent review of these financial rules occurs within 18 months of the first report and every 5 years, with findings made public (Financial Provisions). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note or public cost estimate found. The bill has a Royal Recommendation, indicating new spending authority (Preamble – Recommendation). - The bill directs payments from the CRF for specified costs and sets up regulations and guidelines to control them (Financial Provisions). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---|---|--- Panel member expenses (including lay persons) | Data unavailable | As incurred | (Financial Provisions) Presenting counsel fees and expenses | Data unavailable | As incurred | (Financial Provisions) Judges’ legal fees and expenses for these proceedings and SCC appeals | Data unavailable | As incurred; excludes judicial reviews | (Financial Provisions) Experts, transcription, translation, room rental, security | Data unavailable | As incurred | (Financial Provisions) Independent financial review | Data unavailable | Once within 18 months of first report; every 5 years thereafter | (Financial Provisions) - Key cost controls and transparency: - Governor in Council regulations on fees and expenses (Financial Provisions). - Commissioner’s public guidelines, with reasons for any deviations from Treasury Board directives (Financial Provisions). - Independent review report made public, assessing consistency with best practices in financial controls (Financial Provisions). ## Proponents' View - More proportionate and efficient discipline: Panels can issue corrective measures short of removal (warnings, training, apologies), avoiding full-blown inquiries for mid-level misconduct (Part IV, Division 1 – Review Panel Actions). - Greater transparency and public confidence: Public hearings by default; publication of decisions and annual caseload statistics; public rosters and selection criteria; inclusion of lay persons and attention to diversity and official languages (Part IV, Division 1 – Hearings public; Rosters; Division 4 – Annual report). - Clear removal standard protects independence: Removal must be justified based on defined grounds and the effect on public confidence, aligning with constitutional principles (s. 80 – Removal Justification). - Streamlined appeals and finality reduce delay: Internal appeal panel, limited court review, and possible leave to the Supreme Court of Canada focus challenges within a set pathway (Part IV, Division 1 – Appeals and Supreme Court; Division 4 – Decision final). - Access and safety for complainants: Anonymous complaints are possible when justified; sexual misconduct and discrimination complaints cannot be screened out early (Part IV, Division 1 – Complaints; Screening Officer Restriction). - Cost governance: Payments flow under regulations and public guidelines, with periodic independent audits to check best practices (Financial Provisions). ## Opponents' View - Independence and perception risks: Letting the Minister designate one lawyer on a full hearing panel could be seen as executive influence, even with backups when the Minister is the requester (Part IV, Division 1 – Full Hearing Panel, s. on lawyer designation). - Limited judicial review: Making CJC decisions “final” outside this scheme concentrates adjudicative power and may reduce external court oversight, raising rule-of-law concerns (Division 4 – Decision final). - Anonymous complaints and reputational harm: Allowing anonymity and public hearings could increase exposure to unverified claims, despite screening and public-interest safeguards (Part IV, Division 1 – Complaints; Hearings public). - Uncertain and potentially rising costs: The CRF must pay for panels, counsel (including defence for judges), and hearing logistics; no monetary caps are in the bill, creating budget exposure until regulations and guidelines set parameters (Financial Provisions). - Process complexity and timelines: Multiple stages (screening, review, reduced hearing, full hearing, appeal, possible SCC leave) could still lead to long cases, even if designed to be more proportionate (Part IV, Divisions 1–2). - Pension timing rule: Treating the day after a full hearing panel’s “removal justified” decision as the pension calculation date may appear premature before Parliament or the Minister completes the removal step, even though the bill provides exceptions if the decision is overturned or not acted on (Part IV, Division 1 – Salaries and Annuities).

Platforms Must Pay For Canadian News

## Summary The Online News Act (C‑18) sets rules for large online platforms that make news content available in Canada. It creates a bargaining framework so platforms and Canadian news businesses can reach deals for compensation and other terms. The Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) oversees the system, including exemptions, bargaining rules, and enforcement. - Applies to “digital news intermediaries” (e.g., search engines, social media) when there is a clear power imbalance with news businesses (Application). - Lets the CRTC exempt a platform if it signs deals that meet set criteria, including fair pay and support for local, Indigenous, and official language minority outlets (Exemptions — Exemption order). - Sets a 90‑day negotiation, 120‑day mediation, and 45‑day final‑offer arbitration process, limited to money disputes (Bargaining Process — Steps; Scope of final offer arbitration). - Bars unjust discrimination or undue preference against eligible news businesses; allows complaints to the CRTC (Discrimination, Preference and Disadvantage — Prohibition; Complaint). - Authorizes administrative monetary penalties up to $10 million for a first violation by an entity and $15 million for subsequent violations (Administrative Monetary Penalties — Maximum amount of penalty). - Requires an annual independent audit report on the Act’s impact, published by the CRTC (Independent Review — Annual report). ## What it means for you - Households and news readers - You may see changes in how news links and content appear on major platforms, depending on whether a platform participates, qualifies for an exemption, or changes its services (Application; Exemptions — Exemption order). - The Act aims to support local, regional, national, Indigenous, and official language minority news, which could affect the amount and diversity of Canadian news you can access (Purpose; Exemptions — Exemption order). - Journalists and newsroom workers - News businesses that qualify and participate in bargaining may receive compensation from platforms. The Act says an appropriate portion must support news production (Exemptions — Exemption order). - Eligible news businesses must meet criteria such as employing two or more journalists in Canada, operating in Canada, and following a code of ethics (Eligibility — Eligible news businesses — designation). - News businesses and publishers - If eligible, you can initiate bargaining with listed platforms and use the 90/120/45‑day process, with final‑offer arbitration restricted to monetary terms (Bargaining Process — Steps; Scope of final offer arbitration). - Groups of eligible news businesses can bargain together and are exempt from certain Competition Act provisions when doing so (Competition Act — Covered agreements; Other agreements). - You can file complaints if a platform unjustly discriminates or gives undue preference that harms you (Discrimination, Preference and Disadvantage — Prohibition; Complaint). - Digital platforms (operators) - If the CRTC finds a significant bargaining power imbalance, your service can be listed, triggering bargaining duties and potential penalties for non‑compliance (Application; List of digital news intermediaries; Duty to bargain; Administrative Monetary Penalties — Maximum amount of penalty). - You may seek an exemption by making deals that meet criteria for fair compensation, newsroom support, and broad inclusion across diverse outlets (Exemptions — Exemption order). - If party to a covered agreement, you are not liable under the Copyright Act for activities covered by that agreement (Copyright — Liability of operators). - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC/Radio‑Canada) - If CBC is party to agreements under the Act, it must file an annual report to the CRTC on compensation received and how funds were used (Provision of Information — Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note was published. The Act includes cost‑recovery tools rather than a set appropriation amount (Financial Provisions). - The CRTC may: - Charge fees for services (e.g., handling complaints, regulatory processes), not exceeding cost (Fees for services). - Recover administration costs from operators through charges set by regulation, not exceeding cost (Cost recovery). - Private payments to news businesses will come from platform‑publisher agreements or arbitration outcomes. Amounts vary by agreement (Bargaining Process; Agreements). - Implementation example: The Government of Canada announced regulations and a framework under which Google agreed to contribute CAD $100 million/year to Canadian news businesses. This is an implementation outcome under the Act’s regulatory scheme, not a statutory appropriation (Canadian Heritage, November 29, 2023). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---|---|--- CRTC fees for services | Data unavailable | As set by regulation | (Fees for services) CRTC cost‑recovery charges to operators | Data unavailable | As set by regulation | (Cost recovery) Private operator contributions to news | Varies by agreement; example: CAD $100 million/year (Google) | Annual | (Canadian Heritage, November 29, 2023) ## Proponents' View - Helps correct bargaining imbalances so news producers are fairly paid when platforms make their content available (Application; Purpose). - Ensures funds support journalism by requiring that compensation be used to produce local, regional, and national news (Exemptions — Exemption order). - Protects smaller and diverse outlets by requiring that a “significant portion” of independent local, Indigenous, and official language minority outlets benefit (Exemptions — Exemption order). - Provides a clear, time‑limited process with final‑offer arbitration to reach deals and avoid stalemates (Bargaining Process — Steps; Final Offer Arbitration — Decision of arbitration panel). - Allows collective bargaining by news businesses without breaching certain Competition Act provisions, improving their leverage (Competition Act — Covered agreements; Other agreements). - Builds transparency with an annual independent audit on total deal value and distribution across outlets, published by the CRTC (Independent Review — Annual report). ## Opponents' View - Risk of reduced access to news if platforms change services to avoid coverage; Meta stopped making news available to Canadian users in 2023 in response to the Act, affecting user access and publisher traffic (Canadian Heritage, August 2023). - Smaller publishers may still miss out if they do not meet eligibility (e.g., two‑journalist minimum, general‑interest focus) or cannot engage in complex bargaining (Eligibility — Eligible news businesses — designation). - The process is administratively heavy: CRTC listings, exemption reviews, code of conduct, information requests, and confidentiality rules increase compliance burdens (List of digital news intermediaries; Exemptions; Code of Conduct; Provision of Information). - Arbitration is limited to money disputes, constraining solutions on non‑monetary issues like product changes or algorithmic placement (Bargaining Process — Scope of final offer arbitration). - Enforcement carries large penalties (up to $10 million first violation; $15 million subsequent for entities), creating financial risk during implementation (Administrative Monetary Penalties — Maximum amount of penalty). - Government access to submitted information (Minister and Chief Statistician) and sharing with the Competition Bureau, even with confidentiality limits, may raise data‑handling concerns for businesses (Provision of Information — Minister and Chief Statistician; Confidential information).

Firefighter cancer awareness and prevention framework

## Summary This bill tells the federal Minister of Health to create a national framework to raise awareness about cancers linked to firefighting and to improve access to prevention and treatment. It sets deadlines to table the framework in Parliament and to report on its results. It also declares January as Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month. The bill does not create new benefits or set binding rules for provinces or employers. - Requires the Minister to develop and publish a national framework within 1 year of the Act coming into force (Bill s. 3(1), s. 4(1)–(2)). - Requires consultations with provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, health professionals, scientists, and firefighter stakeholders (Bill s. 3(2)). - Lists optional elements the framework may include, such as research support, screening recommendations, and a summary of existing occupational cancer standards (Bill s. 3(3)(a)-(f)). - Requires a report on the framework’s effectiveness within 5 years after tabling (Bill s. 5(1)–(2)). - Designates January as Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month nationwide (Bill s. 6). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct changes to taxes, benefits, or services. The bill focuses on planning, research, and awareness (Bill s. 3). - Firefighters (career and volunteer) - Expect federal-led information on cancer risks, prevention, and treatment once the framework is published (Bill s. 3(1), s. 4(2)). - May see recommendations for regular cancer screening that are specific to firefighting exposures (Bill s. 3(3)(c)). - No automatic new entitlements, compensation, or coverage are created by this bill (Bill s. 3). - Health care professionals - May receive new training materials or guidance related to firefighter cancers if included in the framework (Bill s. 3(3)(b)). - Possible recommendations on screening or referral practices for firefighters (Bill s. 3(3)(c)). - Fire departments and firefighter associations - Likely invited to participate in federal consultations during framework development (Bill s. 3(2)). - May gain access to shared data and best practices on prevention and treatment (Bill s. 3(3)(d)-(e)). - Provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous governments - Consulted in building the framework; no mandatory adoption of standards or programs (Bill s. 3(2)-(3)). - A federal summary of existing standards recognizing certain firefighter cancers as occupational diseases may improve consistency of information, but it is not binding (Bill s. 3(3)(f)). - General public - January will be recognized as Firefighter Cancer Awareness Month each year, which may prompt campaigns and events (Bill s. 6). - Timing - Framework must be tabled in Parliament within 1 year of the Act coming into force and posted online within 10 days of tabling (Bill s. 4(1)–(2)). - An effectiveness report is due within 5 years after the framework is tabled (Bill s. 5(1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit funding amounts or appropriations are in the bill (Bill, entire text). - Health Canada must develop, table, and publish the framework within 1 year; costs for staffing, consultations, and communications are not stated (Bill s. 3–4). - A 5-year effectiveness report is required; costs are not stated (Bill s. 5). - Awareness Month designation does not mandate spending (Bill s. 6). ## Proponents' View - Creates a clear federal role to coordinate information on firefighter cancers and to support awareness, aiming to improve access to prevention and treatment (Bill s. 3(1)). - Commits to wide consultations across governments and stakeholders, which may improve buy-in and practical relevance (Bill s. 3(2)). - Enables screening recommendations tailored to firefighting risks, which proponents say can support earlier detection (Bill s. 3(3)(c)). Assumes screening guidance will be evidence-based and adopted by providers. - Promotes research and better data collection, addressing existing information gaps on exposures and outcomes (Bill s. 3(3)(a), (d)). Assumes new data will be comparable across jurisdictions. - Summarizes current occupational disease standards across Canada, which may highlight gaps and encourage more consistent recognition of firefighter cancers (Bill s. 3(3)(f)). Assumes provinces and territories will consider the summary. - Sets a 1-year deadline and a 5-year effectiveness review, adding accountability and public reporting (Bill s. 4–5). ## Opponents' View - Framework is non-binding and may have limited impact without new funding, mandates, or changes to provincial workers’ compensation or health programs (Bill s. 3(3)(f)). - Risk of duplicating existing provincial, territorial, municipal, and association initiatives on firefighter cancer prevention and training (Bill s. 3(2)-(3)). Assumes current efforts already cover key needs. - Implementation risk if jurisdictions disagree on screening recommendations or data standards; the bill provides no enforcement tools to align practices (Bill s. 3(3)(c)-(e)). - Administrative burdens for consultations, data collection, and reporting could divert resources, with costs not quantified in the bill (Bill s. 3–5; Data unavailable). - Awareness Month is symbolic and may raise expectations without delivering concrete changes in benefits or coverage (Bill s. 6).

Five-Year Visits for Parents and Grandparents

## Summary This bill changes visitor visas for parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens or permanent residents. It lets them stay longer and broadens where they can buy required health insurance. It also requires a public report on possibly lowering the income requirement for host families. - Sets a 5-year stay for eligible parents and grandparents visiting for an extended period (s.29(3)). - Allows required private health insurance to be purchased from approved insurers outside Canada (added after s.15). - Orders the Minister to table a report within one year on reducing the host’s minimum income requirement, special processing circumstances, and a review process; the report must be published online (Report to Parliament clauses). - If no reduction is provided within two years, the Minister must table reasons in Parliament (Explanation clause). - Does not change who qualifies for a visa beyond these items; all usual admissibility rules still apply (implicit). ## What it means for you - Households (Canadian citizens or permanent residents): You can host a visiting parent or grandparent for up to 5 years per stay once this law takes effect (s.29(3)). You still must meet the existing income requirement until the Minister completes the report and decides on any change (Report to Parliament clauses). You may be able to use a foreign health insurer if the Minister approves that insurer (added after s.15). - Parents and grandparents (foreign nationals): You may apply for a temporary resident visa for an extended visit of 5 years if you meet all conditions (s.29(3)). You must carry private health insurance, which can be from a Canadian company or an approved company outside Canada (added after s.15). All other entry and admissibility rules remain in place (implicit in the Act). - Insurance buyers and providers: Families can shop for required medical coverage from Canadian providers or approved foreign providers, if the Minister has approved them (added after s.15). Coverage must still meet any standards set by ministerial instructions (e.g., coverage limits), but the bill does not change those standards (added after s.15). - Immigration practitioners and advisers: The 5-year stay is set in statute rather than policy, providing a clear rule for planning (s.29(3)). Watch for the Minister’s report within one year and any follow-up changes to the income threshold or review process (Report to Parliament clauses). - Parliament and the public: The Minister must table and publish the report within set timelines, and must provide reasons if no income-threshold reduction is implemented within two years (Report to Parliament; Explanation clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill includes no explicit spending, appropriations, or fee changes (entire bill). - It requires the Minister to approve foreign insurance options and to prepare, table, and publish a report; no cost estimate is provided (added after s.15; Report to Parliament clauses). Data unavailable. - Any administrative, enforcement, or oversight costs for approving and monitoring foreign insurers are not quantified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Longer stays reduce repeat travel and make caregiving and family support easier for multi-year periods (s.29(3)). - Allowing approved foreign insurers increases competition and choice for required health coverage, which could lower premiums for families (added after s.15). Assumes sufficient approved providers and comparable coverage terms. - A mandated report, publication, and possible income-threshold reduction could open the program to more families with modest incomes, while keeping transparency through public tabling (Report to Parliament clauses). - Codifying the 5-year stay in the Act provides stability compared with relying only on ministerial instructions, helping families plan multi-year visits (s.29(3)). - The explanation requirement if no reduction occurs within two years increases accountability to Parliament and the public (Explanation clause). ## Opponents' View - Approving foreign health insurers may pose oversight and enforcement challenges, including verifying solvency, claims payment, and consumer protection across borders (added after s.15). Assumes limited regulatory reach outside Canada. - A 5-year stay could raise risk of unpaid medical costs if insurance is inadequate or claims are denied, potentially shifting burdens to provinces or hospitals (s.29(3)). No quantified risk provided. - If the Minister later reduces the income requirement, more hosts with limited means could face financial strain supporting long visits; the bill does not define safeguards (Report to Parliament clauses). This outcome depends on future ministerial decisions. - The bill mandates reporting but does not guarantee policy change; timelines could create uncertainty for applicants planning near-term travel (Report to Parliament; Explanation clause). - No fiscal estimate is provided; administrative and compliance costs for reviewing insurers and managing the reporting and any new review process are unknown (entire bill).

Sanctioned People Barred from Entering Canada

## Summary This bill (S-8) amends Canada’s immigration law to create a clear, separate ground to bar people from Canada if they are under sanctions. It expands who can be barred to include people and entities sanctioned under Canadian law or under international sanctions that Canada supports. It also changes related rules on detention, appeals, family members, citizenship, and removal orders. - Creates a distinct “sanctions” inadmissibility (new section 35.1) covering sanctions on countries, entities, and persons, including under the Special Economic Measures Act and the Magnitsky law (new s.35.1(1)(a)-(c)). - Ends the bar when the sanction ends (new s.35.1(2)). - Lets the Minister of Public Safety issue a removal order for sanctions-based inadmissibility, rather than the Immigration Division (Regulations; bill summary; IRPR s.228(1)(f)). - Removes access to some relief and appeals for people inadmissible on sanctions grounds (IRPA ss.25, 25.1, 64(1)). - Extends certain consequences to family members and to protected persons seeking permanent residence (IRPA ss.21(2), 42(2)). - Updates the Citizenship Act and Emergencies Act to align with the new sanctions inadmissibility (Citizenship Act s.10.1(4); Emergencies Act clause 30(1)(h)(iii)(A)). ## What it means for you - Households and individuals - If you are under Canadian sanctions or certain international sanctions Canada supports, you are inadmissible (barred from entering or staying) in Canada. This applies to sanctions on states, entities, or specific people (new IRPA s.35.1(1)(a)-(c)). - If the sanction against you ends, the inadmissibility ends (new IRPA s.35.1(2)). - You cannot use humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) requests to overcome sanctions-based inadmissibility for permanent residence (IRPA ss.25(1), 25.1(1)). - If you were accepted as a protected person (refugee protection), you cannot become a permanent resident if you are inadmissible for sanctions (IRPA s.21(2)). - You have no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division if found inadmissible on sanctions grounds (IRPA s.64(1)). - Immigration officers may arrest or detain you if they reasonably suspect sanctions-based inadmissibility (IRPA ss.55(3)(b), 58(1)(c)). - Families and sponsors - Family inadmissibility rules are updated to include the new sanctions ground. Certain family members can be found inadmissible if the principal person is inadmissible for sanctions, especially if accompanying (IRPA s.42(2)(a)-(b)). - There is no ministerial “national interest” relief for sanctions inadmissibility. That relief remains limited to security (s.34), certain human/international rights violations (s.35(1)(b)), and organized criminality (s.37(1)) (IRPA s.42.1(1)-(2); IRPR s.24.1(1)). - Visitors, students, and workers - Visa or permit applications will be refused if you are on a covered sanctions list at the time of decision (new IRPA s.35.1(1)(a)-(c)). - If a sanction is lifted while your application is pending, the specific bar ends (new IRPA s.35.1(2)). - Permanent residents and citizens - A removal order for sanctions inadmissibility can be issued by the Minister of Public Safety under the Regulations, not the Immigration Division, in defined cases (bill summary; IRPR s.228(1)(f)). - In citizenship revocation cases that involve misrepresentation tied to the new sanctions inadmissibility, the existing proof rule now applies (minister must prove the misrepresentation, not the underlying conduct). The change adds s.35.1 to the list (Citizenship Act s.10.1(4)). - Employers, schools, event organizers - If you plan to invite, hire, host, or partner with a foreign national under a covered sanction, that person will be refused entry or removed (new IRPA s.35.1(1)(a)-(c); IRPR s.228(1)(f)). - Timing - The new sanctions inadmissibility applies on Royal Assent. It also applies to sanctions already in effect on that day, as long as those sanctions are still in force then (Transitional Provision). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations or new fees are created in the bill text (Bill text throughout). - Administrative and enforcement costs, if any, are not stated. Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Closes gaps by covering person- and entity-based sanctions, not just country sanctions, aligning immigration bars with Canada’s sanctions regimes, including SEMA and the Magnitsky law (new IRPA s.35.1(1)(a)-(c)). - Provides clear off-ramp: inadmissibility ends when the sanction ends, which ties immigration consequences directly to current sanctions status (new IRPA s.35.1(2)). - Speeds enforcement by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to issue a removal order for sanctions inadmissibility, reducing reliance on Immigration Division proceedings (bill summary; IRPR s.228(1)(f)). Assumes quicker case resolution. - Harmonizes related laws so consequences are consistent across immigration detention, appeal limits, family inadmissibility, and citizenship revocation standards (IRPA ss.42, 55, 58, 64; Citizenship Act s.10.1(4)). Assumes improved clarity for officials and courts. - Ensures existing sanctions lists have immediate effect on inadmissibility at Royal Assent (Transitional Provision). Assumes better alignment with foreign policy. ## Opponents' View - Concentrates decision-making by shifting removal order authority to the Minister of Public Safety and eliminating IAD appeals for sanctions inadmissibility (IRPR s.228(1)(f); IRPA s.64(1)). Assumes higher risk of error without the same level of independent review. - Limits discretionary relief by excluding sanctions inadmissibility from H&C and from the ministerial “national interest” relief pathway (IRPA ss.25, 25.1, 42.1; IRPR s.24.1(1)). Assumes harsher outcomes in exceptional cases. - Extends consequences to certain family members via updated family inadmissibility rules (IRPA s.42(2)), which can lead to family separation when a principal is sanctioned. Assumes wide application depending on “accompanying” status. - Ties immigration outcomes to external sanctions that can change quickly, including those made by international bodies Canada supports (new IRPA s.35.1(1)(a)). Assumes potential uncertainty for applicants as lists update. - Implementation and enforcement may require added resources for screening, detention, and removals, but no cost estimates are provided (Data unavailable). Assumes administrative burden without quantified funding.

New Disability Benefit for Working-Age Canadians

## Summary This bill creates the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB), a new federal cash benefit intended to reduce poverty and improve financial security for working-age people with disabilities. The Act sets the purpose and legal framework, but leaves most details—who qualifies, how much is paid, and how often—to future regulations. It requires the government to work with the disability community, report on progress, and allow appeals. It also amends tax law to allow information sharing needed to run the benefit. - Creates a federal benefit for working-age persons with disabilities; eligibility, amount, and payment rules are set by regulation (ss. 4–7, 11(1)(a)–(f)). - Requires considering the Official Poverty Line, extra disability costs, and human rights when setting the benefit amount (s. 11(1.1)). - Allows the benefit to be indexed to inflation through regulations (s. 11(1)(d)). - Protects payments from most creditors and bankruptcy, but allows garnishment for family support orders (s. 9). - Authorizes agreements with provinces/territories that must be made public (s. 8). - Provides for appeals and periodic parliamentary reviews (ss. 7, 14). ## What it means for you - Households (working-age persons with disabilities) - A new federal cash benefit will be available if you meet eligibility rules set in regulations and you apply (ss. 5–6, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(f)). - You may need to provide information and your Social Insurance Number to administer your claim (ss. 6.1, 6.2). - The exact payment amount, frequency, and any inflation increases will be set in regulations, not in the Act (s. 11(1)(c)–(f)). - If you are unable to manage your affairs, a representative can apply and handle appeals on your behalf (s. 11(1)(k)). - If you miss an application deadline, you may still get retroactive payments in some cases set by regulation (s. 11(1)(j)). - Benefit payments cannot be seized by most creditors or in bankruptcy; however, they can be garnished to enforce family support (s. 9). - If you are overpaid, the government can identify and recover debts; penalties can apply for fraud or knowingly false statements (s. 11(1)(o)–(r)). - Workers - The Act aims to reduce work disincentives, but it does not set earnings rules. Any effects on how work income interacts with the benefit will come from regulations (preamble; s. 11(1)(a)–(c)). - Businesses - No direct obligations or compliance duties are created by the Act. - Provinces and territories - The federal Minister can make agreements with provinces/territories to coordinate supports; these agreements must be published (s. 8). - The Act does not require provinces/territories to maintain or change their disability benefits; any interaction depends on future agreements and provincial decisions (s. 8). - Service users and advocates - The Minister must provide meaningful, barrier-free chances for people with disabilities to help design the regulations and must report to Parliament on engagement and regulatory progress (ss. 12–13). - A future appeals body and process will be identified in regulations; decisions on eligibility and amount can be appealed (s. 7; s. 11(1)(i)). - Taxpayers - The Income Tax Act is amended to allow officials to use taxpayer information to administer and evaluate the CDB (ITA s. 241(4)(d)(vii.51)). - Timing - The Act comes into force on a date set by the government, but no later than 1 year after Royal Assent (Coming into Force). - Key regulations needed to start payments must be made within 12 months of the Act coming into force (s. 11(1.2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $6.1 billion over 2024–2029; $1.4 billion per year ongoing (Budget 2024). - The Act itself contains no dollar amounts; it authorizes payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (s. 10). - Budget 2024 announced federal funding to implement the CDB. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Federal funding envelope | CAD $6.1 billion | 2024–2029 total | Budget 2024 Ongoing funding | CAD $1.4 billion | Per year | Budget 2024 Maximum annual benefit | CAD $2,400 | Per eligible person | Budget 2024 - Province/territory fiscal effects: Data unavailable. - Administrative costs to run applications, appeals, and compliance: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - The CDB targets a group with high poverty rates and aims to reduce poverty among working-age persons with disabilities (purpose; preamble). - When setting the amount, the government must consider the Official Poverty Line, extra disability costs, work barriers, and human rights, which should make the benefit responsive to real needs (s. 11(1.1)). - Regulations can require indexing, helping the benefit keep pace with inflation (s. 11(1)(d)). - A barrier-free application process and required collaboration with the disability community should improve access and design quality (s. 11(1)(f); s. 12). - Protections from seizure and bankruptcy ensure recipients can actually use the benefit for living costs (s. 9). - Regular parliamentary reviews add oversight and a chance to adjust the program over time (s. 14). ## Opponents' View - The law leaves core features—eligibility, amount, indexation, and appeals—to regulations, so there is uncertainty and few guarantees in the statute itself (s. 11(1)). - Implementation could be slow; regulations are only required within 12 months of coming into force, which may delay payments (s. 11(1.2)). - The Act does not prevent provincial/territorial clawbacks; without binding agreements, other programs could reduce their payments, limiting net gains for recipients (s. 8). - Compliance powers (interviews, document demands) and penalties for misstatements may burden applicants and create fear of errors (s. 11(1)(q)–(t)). - Indexation is optional via regulation, not mandated by the Act, so the benefit could lose value if not indexed (s. 11(1)(d)). - The appeals body and process are not defined in the Act, raising risks of complexity or access barriers until regulations are in place (s. 11(1)(i)).

Tougher Sentences for Pregnant Victim Harm

## Summary This bill would change the Criminal Code to make pregnancy an explicit aggravating factor at sentencing. It does not create new crimes. It tells judges to consider tougher sentences when an offender abuses someone they knew was pregnant, or when a pregnant victim suffers physical or emotional harm from the offence (Bill, amending Criminal Code s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - Judges must treat two facts as aggravating: the offender knew the victim was pregnant and abused her; or the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim (Bill, s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - The change applies at sentencing for any offence; it does not change guilt or innocence (Criminal Code s.718, s.718.2). - “Emotional harm” is not defined in the bill; courts would interpret it (Bill text). - The bill does not address medical procedures and does not create a separate offence related to pregnancy (Bill text). - If enacted, it would apply to sentences imposed after it becomes law (general rule on coming-into-force; Bill has no special date clause). ## What it means for you - Households and pregnant people: - If you are pregnant and are the victim of a crime, the prosecutor can ask the judge to treat this as an aggravating factor. This can lead to a tougher sentence within the legal range (Bill, s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - The court may consider emotional harm (such as fear, anxiety, or trauma) as well as physical harm. The bill does not define “emotional harm” (Bill text). - Defendants: - If convicted of a crime where you abused someone you knew to be pregnant, the judge must treat that as aggravating at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(ii.2)). - Even if you did not know the person was pregnant, if the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim, that is also an aggravating factor (s.718.2(a)(ii.3)). - These factors can affect plea talks and may result in longer sentences within existing limits. - Prosecutors and defense counsel: - Prosecutors would present evidence that the victim was pregnant and, for subparagraph (ii.2), that the offender knew it. They may also present evidence of emotional or physical harm (s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - Defense counsel may contest knowledge and the scope of “emotional harm,” which is undefined (Bill text). - Judges and courts: - Judges must state how they considered these aggravating factors when they apply (Criminal Code s.718.2). - Corrections systems (provincial/territorial and federal): - If judges impose longer sentences due to these factors, custody time could increase. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations, new programs, or fees are created in the bill (Bill text). - Canada does not publish a fiscal note for this private member’s bill. Data unavailable. - Any cost effects (for example, from longer average sentences) depend on judicial decisions and case mix. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - It denounces and deters violence against pregnant women by making pregnancy an explicit aggravating factor in law (Preamble; s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - It ensures consistent consideration across courts, reducing gaps where pregnancy might be overlooked at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(ii.2)-(ii.3)). - It recognizes both physical and emotional harm, reflecting real impacts on pregnant victims (s.718.2(a)(ii.3)). - It targets sentencing only and does not create new offences or change abortion law (Bill text). - The knowledge requirement in subparagraph (ii.2) focuses on cases where the offender knew of the pregnancy, aiming to avoid unfairness (s.718.2(a)(ii.2)). ## Opponents' View - Redundant: judges can already consider pregnancy-related harm under existing sentencing principles that account for the gravity and circumstances of the offence (Criminal Code s.718, s.718.2). - Vague drafting: “emotional harm” is undefined, which could lead to inconsistent rulings and more appeals (Bill, s.718.2(a)(ii.3)). - Fairness concern: the second aggravator does not require that the offender knew of the pregnancy, yet could still increase the sentence (Bill, s.718.2(a)(ii.3)). - Implementation risk: added litigation to prove knowledge of pregnancy and to delimit “emotional harm” could lengthen proceedings; no estimate of impacts (Data unavailable). - Cost concern: if sentences increase on average, incarceration costs could rise without clear evidence of deterrence benefits; no fiscal estimate (Data unavailable).

Food Day in Canada each August

## Summary This bill designates the Saturday before the first Monday in August each year as “Food Day in Canada.” It is a symbolic recognition day. The bill creates no programs, funding, or legal duties beyond naming the day (Section 2). It includes a short title clause (Short Title) and a preamble that states the purpose (Preamble). - Establishes a recurring national day called “Food Day in Canada” (Section 2). - Does not create a statutory holiday, paid leave, or required closures (Sections 1–2). - No new regulations, taxes, or fees (Sections 1–2). - Purpose is to celebrate local food and support connections from farms to tables (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households: - A new annual day to celebrate Canadian food on the Saturday before the first Monday in August (Section 2). - No automatic day off or service closures required by this Act (Sections 1–2). - Workers: - No new paid holiday or overtime rules are created by this Act (Sections 1–2). - Work schedules are unchanged unless your employer chooses to mark the day. - Businesses (farms, food producers, restaurants, retailers, markets): - May choose to run promotions or events tied to “Food Day in Canada,” but nothing is required (Section 2). - No reporting, certification, or labeling requirements are added (Sections 1–2). - Local governments and community groups: - May host events or campaigns if they wish, but there is no mandate to do so (Sections 1–2). - No new compliance or enforcement duties (Sections 1–2). - Schools and public institutions: - No curriculum or program requirements; any observance would be voluntary (Sections 1–2). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no appropriations or mandates in bill text). - No explicit appropriations in the Act (Sections 1–2). - No tax, fee, or revenue changes (Sections 1–2). - No new programs, staffing, or enforcement duties (Sections 1–2). - Any promotional activities would be optional and are not required by the Act (Sections 1–2). ## Proponents' View - Encourages Canadians to celebrate local food, which the preamble links to social, environmental, and economic well-being (Preamble). - Signals support for local farmers and a sustainable food system without adding regulatory burden (Preamble; Sections 1–2). - Creates a clear, recurring national focal point to connect farms and tables, which may help awareness and participation (Section 2; Preamble). - Low implementation complexity and no new compliance costs because it only designates a day (Sections 1–2). - Aligns with the idea that food safety and security are tied to national sovereignty, raising public attention to the food system (Preamble). ## Opponents' View - Symbolic only; the Act sets a name for a day but does not fund programs or change policy on food security, farm supports, or affordability (Sections 1–2). - No measurable targets, reporting, or evaluation requirements, so outcomes may be unclear (Sections 1–2). - Could cause public confusion if people assume it is a statutory holiday, since the Act does not create any leave or closure requirements (Section 2). - Opportunity cost: parliamentary time spent on designation rather than on substantive food system reforms (Sections 1–2). - Any public promotion by governments or institutions would be optional and unfunded in the Act, leading to uneven observance across regions (Sections 1–2).

Citizenship restored for some born abroad

## Summary This bill changes the Citizenship Act to restore or confirm Canadian citizenship for a narrow group of people born outside Canada who lost it — or would have lost it — because of an old “age 28 retention” rule that existed before April 17, 2009. It also clarifies that people who were already citizens on June 11, 2015 keep that status, and updates a regulation-making reference. The bill does not change the general “first-generation born abroad” limit introduced in 2009. - Restores citizenship to people whose retention applications were refused under the pre‑2009 rule (Citizenship Act s.3(1)(f)(iii), as amended). - Recognizes as citizens people born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 who would be citizens if they had applied to retain under the pre‑2009 rule (s.3(1)(g.1), new). - Confirms that the “second‑generation born abroad” limit does not strip citizenship from anyone who was a citizen on June 11, 2015 (s.3(4), replaced). - Aligns regulation‑making authority to cover the new category (s.27(1)(j.1)(i), amended). ## What it means for you - Households - If you or a family member were born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and lost citizenship at age 28 for not meeting the old retention rule, you would be recognized as a citizen in law once this bill takes effect (s.3(1)(f)(iii), as amended; s.3(1)(g.1), new). - If you applied to retain citizenship under the old rule and your application was refused, you would be recognized as a citizen in law (s.3(1)(f)(iii), as amended). - To use rights (passport, vote), you would still need to get proof of citizenship and then apply for a passport through normal processes. The bill does not set procedures or fees (Data unavailable in bill text). - Workers - If you regain citizenship under this bill, you can work in Canada without a work permit and access rights reserved for citizens (recognition under s.3(1), as amended). - Businesses - No direct compliance changes. Some employers may see new hires who can work as citizens. No new reporting or fees (bill text). - Local and provincial governments - No new mandates in the bill text. Service agencies may see more proof‑of‑citizenship and ID updates (Data unavailable). - Service users - People recognized under this bill would be eligible for federal and provincial services that require citizenship, subject to other program rules (recognition under s.3(1), as amended). - Timing - The bill does not state a specific coming‑into‑force date. It takes effect on the date it comes into force (bill text). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations, taxes, or fees are created in the bill text. - Likely costs are administrative (processing proof‑of‑citizenship and passports), but no official fiscal note was identified (Data unavailable). - Regulation updates may be needed to reflect the new category (s.27(1)(j.1)(i), amended). ## Proponents' View - Fixes a narrow historical gap from the pre‑2009 “age 28 retention” rule by restoring status to people refused under that rule (s.3(1)(f)(iii), as amended). - Gives citizenship to people who would have kept it if they had applied under the old rule, addressing a procedural trap rather than changing today’s general rules (s.3(1)(g.1), new). - Protects continuity for existing citizens by making clear the “second‑generation born abroad” limit does not remove citizenship from anyone who had it on June 11, 2015 (s.3(4), replaced). - Limited scope reduces cost and implementation risk because it targets a defined cohort born after February 14, 1977 and tied to the pre‑2009 rule (s.3(1)(g.1), new). - Aligns regulation‑making powers so the department can verify and document status for the affected group (s.27(1)(j.1)(i), amended). ## Opponents' View - Creates retroactive recognition that may be complex to administer; departments must verify old facts about births and parent citizenship decades later (s.3(1)(f)(iii) and s.3(1)(g.1)). - May increase workloads for proof‑of‑citizenship and passport processing without added resources, risking longer wait times (Data unavailable). - Could cause confusion about who qualifies, since the bill refers to a repealed rule and specific past dates, requiring clear guidance and updated regulations (s.3(1)(g.1); s.27(1)(j.1)(i)). - Does not address other “lost Canadian” situations or the broader “first‑generation born abroad” limit, which may leave similar cases unresolved (s.3(3) unchanged; s.3(4) only preserves 2015 citizens).

New Rules Strengthen French Language Rights

## Summary Bill C-13 updates the Official Languages Act and creates a new law for the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. It aims to protect and promote French, strengthen services and work rights in both English and French, and improve oversight and enforcement. Many parts took effect on June 20, 2024, with others scheduled for June 20, 2025, or by order of the Governor in Council. - Expands rights to receive federally regulated private services in French in Quebec, and later in regions with a strong francophone presence (Part 2, s. 7(1)). - Gives employees in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec the right to work and be supervised in French, get key documents in French, and see job ads in French (Part 2, s. 9(1)–(2.1)). - Strengthens federal oversight, audits, and reporting by the Treasury Board; adds order-making powers and administrative monetary penalties in limited cases (Part 1, s. 46(3); Administrative Monetary Penalties, max $25,000). - Requires federal courts’ precedential decisions to be available simultaneously in both languages; confirms equal access to justice in both languages (Part 1, s. 20(1)(a.1), 20(2)). - Mandates a francophone immigration policy with targets and indicators (Part 1, s. 44(1)–(2)). - Phased-in dates and transitional rules; some powers begin only when set by order (Coming into Force; Part 2, transitional clauses). ## What it means for you - Households and consumers - In Quebec: You have the right to communicate and receive available services in French from federally regulated private businesses (banks, airlines, telecoms, etc.), without losing the option to use English if offered (Part 2, s. 7(1), 7(3), 8). - Outside Quebec: The same right will later apply in “regions with a strong francophone presence,” to be defined by regulation (Part 2, amendments to s. 4, 7(1), 33(1)(b), 33(2.1)). - Complaints: You can complain to the Commissioner of Official Languages about service in French from these businesses (Part 2, s. 16–17). - Workers in federally regulated private businesses (FRPBs) - In Quebec: You have the right to work and be supervised in French; to receive key employment documents and communications in French; and to use common tools and systems in French (Part 2, s. 9(1)–(2)). - Job postings assigned to Quebec workplaces must be published in French at the same time as any posting in another language, using similar channels and reach (Part 2, s. 9(2.1)). - Employers must take measures to foster the use of French at work (e.g., a committee and programs to generalize French use) and cannot treat you adversely for asserting language rights (Part 2, s. 10(1)–(1.1), 11(1), 11(6)–(8)). - Limits: Individual contracts can be in another language if you agree (with safeguards), and employers may require another language only if it is objectively needed for the job and certain steps are taken (Part 2, s. 9(4)–(6); 11(3)–(4)). - Remedies: You can complain to the Commissioner; in some cases, the Canada Industrial Relations Board can order reinstatement or compensation (Part 2, s. 18–28). - Employees of federal institutions - You have the right to use English or French at work where prescribed; managers in certain roles need the ability to communicate in both languages; deputy ministers must take language training (Part 1, s. 34–36). - New rule that employees must be supervised in their chosen official language takes effect on June 20, 2025, with acquired-rights protections (Part 1, s. 36(1)(c)(ii), 36(3); Coming into Force). - Federal institutions must consider and mitigate negative impacts on official language communities when making structuring decisions and include language clauses in certain federal–provincial agreements (Part 1, s. 41(7)–(10.4)). - Travelling public - Federal courts’ final decisions with precedential value must be available simultaneously in both languages, supporting clarity of rights (Part 1, s. 20(1)(a.1)). - Certain designated transportation sector corporations serving the travelling public can face administrative monetary penalties up to $25,000 per violation for Part IV service failures (regulations define scope) (Part 1, Administrative Monetary Penalties). - Community organizations, schools, and local governments - Federal institutions have a duty to take “positive measures” to enhance the vitality of English and French minority communities and to publish certain agreements that include official languages clauses, subject to access-to-information limits (Part 1, s. 41(5)–(10.4)). - Disposal of surplus federal property must consider minority-language community needs, with consultations (Part 1, disposal strategy clauses). - Immigrants and prospective immigrants - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must adopt a policy on francophone immigration, including objectives, targets, indicators, and reporting (Part 1, s. 44(1)–(2)). - Timing - Many provisions took effect on June 20, 2024 (first anniversary of Royal Assent). Some take effect on June 20, 2025 (second anniversary). Others start on dates set by order, including certain enforcement powers for FRPB complaints (Coming into Force; Part 2 transitional clauses). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Fiscal information - The bill includes a Royal Recommendation (permission to spend) but does not state dollar amounts. It creates new duties for the Treasury Board, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which imply ongoing administrative costs (Part 1, s. 46(3); Part 2, amendments to Canada Labour Code). - New enforcement tools include orders and administrative monetary penalties; penalty revenues, if any, are remitted to the Receiver General (Part 1, AMPs, debt and Receiver General provisions). - Private-sector compliance costs (e.g., bilingual communications, translation, committees, job posting rules) will vary by firm size and sector. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Enhances French where it is most at risk by creating enforceable consumer and workplace rights in Quebec and later in francophone regions, while allowing service in English when offered (Part 2, s. 7(1), 7(3), 9(1)). - Moves from intent to accountability: Treasury Board must set policies, audit institutions, and report annually; the Commissioner can make orders and use penalties in defined cases (Part 1, s. 46(3); s. 64.5; AMPs max $25,000). - Improves access to justice: federal courts’ precedential decisions must be available at the same time in both languages, reducing delays or uncertainty (Part 1, s. 20(1)(a.1)). - Requires a francophone immigration policy with targets and indicators, addressing the decline in the demographic weight of French communities (Part 1, s. 44(1)–(2); preamble commitments). - Strengthens “positive measures” and transparency for federal–provincial agreements, supporting minority-language education, culture, health, justice, employment, and immigration sectors (Part 1, s. 41(6)(c), 41(7)–(10.4)). - Clarifies that obligations apply at all times, including during emergencies, helping prevent service gaps (Preamble; Part 1 general clauses). ## Opponents' View - Compliance burden on businesses: FRPBs must translate documents, run French-use committees, and publish job ads in French; costs may be high for smaller firms once thresholds are set (Part 2, s. 9–11, 33(1)(a)–(b)). Data unavailable. - Overlap and complexity with Quebec’s Charter of the French Language; firms must choose which regime applies in Quebec and follow notice rules, creating legal uncertainty (Part 2, s. 6(1)–(2)). - Unclear scope outside Quebec until “regions with a strong francophone presence” are defined by regulation, increasing planning risk for employers and consumers (Part 2, amendments to s. 4, 7(1), 9(1), 33(1)(b), 33(2.1)). - Enforcement is uneven: AMPs apply only to designated transportation sector bodies serving the travelling public; other sectors rely on orders or negotiated compliance, which may reduce deterrence (Part 1, AMPs application and regulations). - Implementation risk: Many provisions start by order of the Governor in Council; some Commissioner powers for FRPB complaints are delayed by transitional clauses, which could slow early enforcement (Part 2, transitional clauses; Coming into Force). - Federal institutions face broader duties to assess and mitigate negative impacts on language communities and to include language clauses in agreements, which may complicate negotiations with provinces and territories (Part 1, s. 41(7)(a.1), (8)–(10.4)).

Allows Aid Work in Terrorist-Controlled Zones

## Summary Bill C-41 changes the Criminal Code to let the Public Safety Minister authorize Canadians to do certain aid and support work in areas controlled by terrorist groups. It also adds a clear humanitarian exception and sets rules for applications, security reviews, reporting, and oversight. Related laws are amended to allow limited information-sharing for security reviews and to update police powers tied to the renamed offences. - Creates an authorization system for work on health, education, livelihoods, human rights, immigration/resettlement, and support to federal operations in areas controlled by terrorist groups (s.83.032(1)-(2)). - Adds a humanitarian exception for impartial humanitarian organizations that use reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups (s.83.03(4)). - Keeps and clarifies criminal offences for providing money or services for terrorist purposes or to benefit a terrorist group, with a maximum 10-year sentence (s.83.03(1)-(2)). - Requires ministerial referrals, security reviews, and allows terms, conditions, renewal, suspension, and revocation of authorizations (s.83.032(5)-(12), (14); s.83.035–83.037). - Allows specific agencies to assist with administration and information-sharing, and sets special judicial review rules that protect sensitive information (s.83.038; s.83.0391(2)). - Requires annual public reporting on application volumes and periodic comprehensive reviews (s.83.0391(1)-(3)). ## What it means for you - Households and communities - The law still makes it a crime to provide money or services for terrorist purposes or knowing they will be used by or benefit a terrorist group; penalties can be up to 10 years in prison (s.83.03(1)-(2)). - If you seek help from Canadian charities in conflict zones, those groups may be able to operate with an authorization, or under the humanitarian exception if they qualify (s.83.032(1); s.83.03(4)). - Charities and NGOs - You may apply for an authorization to operate in an area controlled by a terrorist group for listed purposes like health, education, livelihoods, human rights, and immigration/resettlement (s.83.032(1)). - Applications must be referred to the Public Safety Minister by the Foreign Affairs Minister and/or the Immigration Minister, depending on purpose (s.83.032(5)-(6)). - To be referred, you must show the area is controlled by a terrorist group, the activity meets a real and important need, and you can manage funds transparently in high-risk settings (s.83.032(6)(a)-(e)). - The Public Safety Minister runs a security review, can set terms and conditions, and can suspend, revoke, or restrict the authorization. Authorizations can last up to 5 years and be renewed (s.83.032(10)-(12), (14); s.83.035–83.037). - The authorization can cover third parties you use (e.g., vendors, transporters), not only your staff (s.83.032(13)). - Impartial humanitarian organizations may rely on the humanitarian exception if their sole purpose is humanitarian assistance and they use reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups (s.83.03(4)). - Businesses and contractors - If you support an authorized project in a controlled area (e.g., logistics, banking, telecom), you can be covered as a third party under the authorization, subject to its conditions (s.83.032(13)). - It remains a criminal offence to knowingly provide money or services that will be used by or benefit a terrorist group, unless covered by an authorization or the humanitarian exception (s.83.03(2)-(4)). - Financial institutions and professionals - You may be asked to support authorized activities and comply with authorization conditions, including reporting on fund flows and controls (s.83.032(12)). - Police can seek court orders to intercept private communications when investigating these offences, as they are listed in the wiretap section of the Code (s.183(a)(xii.2), (xii.21)). - Privacy and data use - During security reviews, specified federal bodies (e.g., CSIS, RCMP, CSE, DND/CAF, Global Affairs, CRA, CBSA, IRCC) may collect and share information only for administering and enforcing this regime (s.83.038(1)-(2)). - Tax and excise information may be shared with officials for a security review if it is reasonably relevant (Income Tax Act s.241(4)(d)(xxiii); Excise Tax Act s.295(5)(d)(xiv); Excise Act, 2001 s.211(6)(e)(xv)). - Applicants and legal process - If refused, you must receive notice within a reasonable time. You must wait 30 days to reapply unless there is a material change; in limited cases a new application can proceed without a fresh referral (s.83.033(1)-(3)). - On judicial review, a judge can consider secret evidence in closed hearings and provide you only a summary that protects national security and safety; an amicus curiae (independent lawyer) may assist the court (s.83.0391(2)(a)-(e), (a.1)). - Transparency and oversight - The Public Safety Minister must publish an annual report with the number of applications made, approved, and refused, and conduct a comprehensive review after 1 year and every 5 years, including plans to fix any problems (s.83.0391(1)-(3)). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Key points: - No explicit appropriations, fees, or revenue changes in the bill text (Data unavailable). - Administration will involve multiple departments and agencies for reviews and reporting, but no official cost estimate is provided in public sources (Data unavailable). ## Proponents' View - Enables life-saving and essential services in crisis zones while managing risk, by allowing authorizations for health, education, livelihoods, human rights, immigration/resettlement, and support to federal operations (s.83.032(1)). - Reduces the chilling effect on aid by adding a clear humanitarian exception for impartial humanitarian organizations using reasonable efforts to minimize benefits to terrorist groups (s.83.03(4)). - Builds in safeguards: ministerial referrals, security reviews, conditions, coverage of third parties, 5-year limits, suspension/revocation powers (s.83.032(5)-(12), (13)-(14); s.83.037). - Improves clarity for applicants with a duty on the Minister to say if an authorization is needed for a specific area and activity (s.83.032(2.1)). - Aligns with UN sanctions; activities benefiting listed entities can be authorized only with confirmation from the Foreign Affairs Minister that international law allows it (s.83.032(15)). - Provides transparency and accountability through annual public reporting and scheduled comprehensive reviews with corrective plans (s.83.0391(1)-(3)). ## Opponents' View - Process may be slow and complex, delaying urgent aid: multi-minister referrals, detailed applications, security reviews, and a 30-day wait after refusals unless circumstances change (s.83.032(5)-(11); s.83.033(2)). - Privacy risks: broad set of agencies can share information, including tax and excise data, for security reviews; although limited to what is reasonably relevant, the scope may still be intrusive (s.83.038(1)-(2); Income Tax Act s.241(4)(d)(xxiii)). - The “control” test may capture areas where benefits to a terrorist group are indirect, raising compliance burdens for legitimate programs (s.83.032(2)). - Authorizations are not statutory instruments, so they are not published like regulations, which may reduce transparency of conditions and decisions (s.83.032(16)). - Judicial review relies on secret evidence and summaries, which may limit an applicant’s ability to fully challenge a refusal (s.83.0391(2)(a)-(e)). - No explicit statutory timelines for approvals beyond “reasonable time” for refusal notices, creating uncertainty for planning and deployment (s.83.033(1)).

Canada Recognizes International Mother Language Day

## Summary This bill designates February 21 of every year as International Mother Language Day across Canada. It recognizes Canada’s linguistic diversity and aligns with a UNESCO day noted by the United Nations. The bill states the day is not a legal holiday and does not change work, school, or business schedules (Not a legal holiday clause). - Names February 21 as International Mother Language Day across Canada (International Mother Language Day clause). - Affirms Canada’s many languages, including more than 60 Aboriginal languages (Preamble). - Aligns with UNESCO’s 1999 proclamation and a 2007 UN General Assembly call to protect languages (Preamble). - Does not create a statutory holiday or non-juridical day (Not a legal holiday clause). - Imposes no programs, mandates, or reporting requirements (Bill text). ## What it means for you - Households: - The day is recognized nationally. It does not provide a day off or change benefits (Not a legal holiday clause). - The Act does not require any action by residents (Bill text). - Workers: - No paid holiday, overtime change, or scheduling rule changes result from this Act (Not a legal holiday clause). - Businesses: - No closure requirements or labor rule changes apply. Normal operations continue on February 21 (Not a legal holiday clause). - Schools and universities: - The Act does not mandate programs, events, or schedule changes. Education calendars remain under provincial or institutional control (Bill text). - Local and provincial governments: - No required observances or spending. Provinces and cities that already recognize the day may continue to do so (Preamble; Bill text). - Federal institutions: - The Act designates the day but does not require federal departments to run programs or issue reports (Bill text). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Explicit appropriations in the bill: None (Bill text). - New mandates on governments, schools, or businesses: None (Bill text). - Fee or revenue changes: None (Bill text). - Official fiscal note: No publicly available information. - Notes: The Act expressly does not create a legal holiday (Not a legal holiday clause). ## Proponents' View - It recognizes and affirms Canada’s linguistic diversity, including more than 60 Aboriginal languages, which supports cultural inclusion (Preamble). - It aligns Canada with UNESCO’s 1999 proclamation and the 2007 UN General Assembly call to preserve and protect languages (Preamble). - It provides a clear national date for voluntary observance, which proponents say can raise awareness at minimal cost because it is not a legal holiday (Not a legal holiday clause; assumption about awareness effects). - It complements existing provincial and municipal recognitions, creating a consistent national signal without imposing mandates (Preamble; Bill text). ## Opponents' View - The bill is symbolic only; it creates no programs, funding, or legal rights, so practical impact may be limited (Bill text). - Without dedicated resources, opponents argue the designation is unlikely by itself to preserve or revitalize languages (assumption; no funding in Bill text). - There is a risk of public confusion about whether the day is a holiday, despite the clause stating it is not a legal holiday (Not a legal holiday clause; assumption about public understanding). - Federal designation does not change provincial or local control over schools or services, so outcomes may vary widely and remain unchanged in many places (Bill text).

Canada Bans Child Labour Goods, Requires Reports

## Summary This bill creates the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and amends the Customs Tariff. It requires certain federal institutions and large or listed companies to publish yearly reports on steps they take to prevent forced or child labour in their goods and supply chains. It also expands Canada’s import ban to include goods made in whole or in part with child labour, not only forced labour. - Annual public reports due by May 31 each year from covered federal institutions and entities (Part 1 s.6; Part 2 s.11). - Who must report: entities listed on a Canadian stock exchange or meeting size tests, and those that import, produce, sell, or distribute goods, or control such entities (s.2 “entity”; Part 2 s.9–10). - Reports must cover policies, risks, actions, training, and how effectiveness is assessed (Part 1 s.6(2); Part 2 s.11(3)). - Reports must be posted on the organization’s website; the Minister will also post all reports in a public registry (Part 1 s.8; Part 2 s.13(1); Part 3 s.20). - Inspectors can verify compliance; the Minister may order corrective action; fines up to CAD $250,000 per offence for non-compliance or false statements (Part 2 s.15, s.18–19). - Customs Tariff now also bans imports made with child labour, in addition to forced labour (Part 4). ## What it means for you - Households - You can read public reports about companies’ efforts to prevent forced and child labour in their supply chains (Part 3 s.20). - The Minister will table an annual summary in Parliament by September 30, which will also be posted online (Part 3 s.22). - Workers - Covered employers must report on employee training about forced and child labour (Part 1 s.6(2)(f); Part 2 s.11(3)(f)). - The law does not mandate new workplace standards beyond reporting; it requires disclosure of steps taken, if any (Part 1 s.6; Part 2 s.11). - Businesses (producers, sellers, distributors, and importers of goods) - If you are listed on a Canadian exchange or meet at least two of these in a recent year—assets of at least CAD $20,000,000, revenue of at least CAD $40,000,000, or an average of at least 250 employees—you must file an annual report by May 31 (s.2 “entity”; Part 2 s.11(1), s.11(3)(a)–(g)). - Parent companies must report if they control covered entities; control can be direct or indirect (Part 2 s.10; Part 3 s.21(b)). - Reports must be approved by the governing body and signed by a board member; joint reports are allowed (Part 2 s.11(4)–(5)). - You must post the report prominently on your website and, if federally incorporated, send it to each shareholder with annual financial statements (Part 2 s.13(1)–(2)). - Inspectors may enter business premises (not private homes without a warrant), review documents and data, and require assistance (Part 2 s.15–16). - Non-compliance, obstruction, or knowingly false statements can lead to fines up to $250,000; directors and officers can be personally liable (Part 2 s.17, s.19). - Federal government institutions - If you produce, purchase, or distribute goods, you must file an annual report by May 31 covering policies, risk areas, remediation steps, training, and effectiveness measures (Part 1 s.6(1)–(2)). - You must post the report on your website (Part 1 s.8). - Provincial, territorial, and municipal governments - The Act binds the Crown in right of Canada and of a province (s.4), but the specific “government institution” reporting duty uses the federal Access to Information Act definition, which applies to federal bodies (Part 1 s.3; s.2 “government institution”). - Importers and retailers - Goods mined, made, or produced in whole or in part with child labour, as defined in the Act, are now also prohibited from import, alongside forced labour goods (Part 4; Customs Tariff s.132(1)(m)(i.1); tariff item 9897.00.00). - Timing - Reports are due annually by May 31 (Part 1 s.6; Part 2 s.11). - The Act comes into force on January 1 of the year after Royal Assent (Part 5). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note was published. Data unavailable. - The Act does not include a direct appropriation; administration costs for inspections, the registry, and annual ministerial reporting are not specified. Data unavailable. - Maximum penalties: up to CAD $250,000 per offence for non-compliance or knowingly false/misleading statements (Part 2 s.19). - Compliance costs for entities (e.g., preparing reports, approvals, website posting, shareholder mailings) are not estimated in the Act. Data unavailable. - Customs enforcement resource needs to apply the expanded import ban are not stated. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves transparency by requiring detailed, public annual reports on policies, risks, actions, training, and effectiveness across supply chains (Part 1 s.6(2); Part 2 s.11(3)). - Extends Canada’s import ban to cover child labour as well as forced labour, closing a gap in border controls (Part 4; tariff item 9897.00.00). - Increases accountability: board-level approval and signatures are required; reports must be sent to shareholders for federally incorporated companies (Part 2 s.11(4)–(5), s.13(2)). - Enables enforcement: inspection powers, corrective orders, and fines up to $250,000, with liability for directors and officers (Part 2 s.15, s.18–19). - Creates a public registry and an annual ministerial report to Parliament, making it easier to compare organizations and track progress (Part 3 s.20, s.22). - Aligns with Canada’s commitments under core International Labour Organization conventions by targeting forced and child labour risks (Preamble; Purpose s.3). ## Opponents' View - Reporting-only model: the Act requires disclosure of steps taken but does not mandate due diligence standards or outcomes; firms could comply with minimal action if they report it (Part 2 s.11(1), s.11(3)). - Penalties may be too low to deter large firms; the maximum fine of $250,000 per offence may not scale with company size (Part 2 s.19). - Scope and definitions may create uncertainty until regulations clarify “control” and any prescribed entities (Part 2 s.10; Part 3 s.21(b), (c)). - Enforcement capacity risk: inspections, registry management, and import enforcement are required, but the Act sets no resources or service standards (Part 2 s.15; Part 3 s.20; Part 4). Data unavailable. - Compliance burden for mid-sized entities meeting the thresholds may be significant (board approvals, website publication, shareholder mailings), yet the Act provides no streamlined pathway or safe harbor (s.2 “entity”; Part 2 s.11(4)–(6), s.13(2)). - Potential unintended effects in supply chains if companies end relationships without remediation; the Act asks entities to report any measures to remediate loss of income for vulnerable families, but it does not require such measures (Part 2 s.11(3)(e)).

Streaming Platforms Face Canadian Content Duties

## Summary The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) updates the Broadcasting Act to include online streaming services as part of Canada’s broadcasting system. It gives the CRTC new tools to set conditions, require contributions to Canadian content, and ensure people can find Canadian programs, while stating that individual users’ uploads on social media are generally outside the Act. Most provisions are in force; some take effect through later CRTC orders and regulations and, for certain clauses, by order in council (Coming into Force). - Brings “online undertakings” (streaming over the Internet) into the Act as a class of broadcasting undertakings (s.2(1), “online undertaking”). - Lets the CRTC impose conditions by order (not just through licences) and require platforms to support Canadian programming through spending (“expenditures”) (s.9.1, s.11.1). - States the Act does not apply to user-uploaded programs on social media, except if prescribed by regulation under clear factors (s.4.1, s.4.2). - Directs the system to support French-language and Indigenous programming, official language minority communities, accessibility, and diverse creators (s.3(1), s.5(2)). - Adds discoverability obligations for online services, without allowing the CRTC to require a specific algorithm or source code (s.9.1(1)(e), s.9.1(8)). - Creates administrative monetary penalties (up to $10 million for a first corporate violation) and sets offence fines for non-compliance (Part II.2; s.32–34.3). ## What it means for you - Households - You will likely see more Canadian programming highlighted or recommended on streaming services after the CRTC issues orders on “showcasing” and discoverability (timelines set by CRTC proceedings) (s.9.1(1)(e), s.18(2)(b), s.9.1(4)-(5)). - Accessibility features (like closed captioning and described video) are reinforced as system goals; CRTC can set related conditions (in effect as orders are made) (s.3(1)(p), (p.1); s.9.1(1)(k)). - Creators and producers (including Indigenous, French-language, OLMC, and racialized creators) - More funding opportunities may flow from required “expenditures” by platforms to develop, produce, or promote Canadian programs; amounts and rules will be set by CRTC regulations and orders (phased in) (s.11.1(1), (2), (6)). - The Act prioritizes French-language originals and Indigenous-language content; CRTC must set a minimum share for original French programs where services offer both languages (in effect as regulations/orders are made) (s.3(1)(iii.2), (q), (r); s.11.1(3)). - Community media and diverse voices are recognized in policy, which the CRTC must consider in its decisions (now in force) (s.3(1)(iii)-(iii.7), (s)). - Online streaming platforms and social media services - If you operate in Canada, you come under the Act as an “online undertaking” (now in force) (s.2(1), s.31.1(2)). - You may have to register with the CRTC and comply with conditions by order, including discoverability, data reporting, accessibility, and carriage terms (as CRTC makes regulations and orders) (s.10(1)(i); s.9.1(1)(e), (k), (n)-(o), (i)). - You can be required to make spending contributions to support Canadian programming and creators; criteria can reference revenues and performance (as set by CRTC) (s.11.1(1), (6)). - CRTC cannot require a specific algorithm or source code, but can set outcomes for “showcasing” and discoverability (now in force; orders to follow) (s.9.1(1)(e), s.9.1(8)). - User uploads on social media are generally excluded; some revenue-generating or broadcast-type programs may be prescribed by regulation under listed factors (effective upon any CRTC regulation under s.4.2) (s.4.1, s.4.2). - Traditional broadcasters and distributors (TV, cable, satellite) - Existing licence-based duties continue; some prior licence conditions and exemption orders are deemed to be orders or regulations under the new framework (now in force) (Transitional, “deemed order/regulations”). - The CRTC can continue to set carriage and packaging terms, including priorities and mandatory services (as orders are made) (s.9.1(1)(g)-(j)). - Persons with disabilities - Accessibility without barriers is a stated objective; the CRTC can impose related conditions and enforce them with penalties (now in force; orders to follow) (s.3(1)(p), (p.1); s.9.1(1)(k); s.34.4(1)(h)). - Timing and oversight - Most provisions took effect on Royal Assent (April 27, 2023). Some clauses commence by order in council; most substantive obligations begin after CRTC consultations and orders (Coming into Force; s.9.1(4)-(5), s.11.1(7)). - The CRTC must consult every 7 years on its orders/regulations under s.9.1 and s.11.1 and publish a review plan (now in force) (s.34.31). - Parliament must conduct a comprehensive review in the fifth year and every five years after a report (now in force) (Review). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriation is contained in the Act. Data unavailable on incremental CRTC administrative costs. - CRTC cost-recovery fees: The CRTC may set fee schedules for broadcasting undertakings; fees are limited to recovering the CRTC’s costs under the Act (amounts set by regulation) (s.11(1)(a)-(d), s.11(3.1)). - Mandatory industry expenditures: The CRTC may require undertakings to spend to support Canadian content and creators; these are not government revenues (amounts set by CRTC orders/regulations) (s.11.1(1)-(2), (6)). - Administrative monetary penalties: Potential federal revenues are uncertain; maximums are set in statute (s.34.5). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Corporate AMPs (first/subsequent) | Up to $10,000,000 / $15,000,000 | Per violation | s.34.5(1)(b) Individual AMPs (first/subsequent) | Up to $25,000 / $50,000 | Per violation | s.34.5(1)(a) Offence: broadcasting contrary to Act (corporation) | Up to $250,000/day | Per day | s.32(b) Offence: contravention of regulation/order (corporation) | Up to $250,000 first; $500,000 subsequent | Per offence | s.33(b) CRTC regulatory fees | Cost-recovery only | Ongoing (by reg) | s.11(1), s.11(3.1) Industry “expenditures” to support Canadian content | Data unavailable | Ongoing (by order/reg) | s.11.1 ## Proponents' View - Ensures foreign and domestic online services contribute “equitably” to Canadian content and talent, aligning with how licensed broadcasters already contribute (s.3(1)(a.1), (f.1); s.11.1). - Supports French-language, Indigenous, and OLMC programming, including minimum shares for original French-language content and discoverability of Canadian programs (s.3(1)(iii.2), (iii.3), (q), (r); s.11.1(3); s.9.1(1)(b)-(e)). - Protects users’ freedom of expression: user-uploaded social media content is excluded unless prescribed under clear, enumerated factors; CRTC must act consistently with freedom of expression (s.4.1, s.4.2(2)-(3); “For greater certainty” after s.10). - Avoids heavy-handed tech mandates: the CRTC cannot require a specific algorithm or source code, focusing instead on outcomes like “showcasing” (s.9.1(1)(e), s.9.1(8)). - Builds in proportional regulation and privacy safeguards: the CRTC must consider service size and impact, avoid obligations with no material policy benefit, and protect audience privacy (s.5(2)(a.1), (h), (g.1)). ## Opponents' View - User-generated content risk: Although user uploads are excluded, s.4.2 allows regulations to prescribe certain revenue-generating or broadcast-type social media programs, which critics say could capture some creators and podcasts (s.4.1, s.4.2(2)-(3)). - Algorithmic influence concern: Discoverability orders may still pressure platforms to change recommendation systems, affecting creators’ reach, even if the CRTC cannot mandate a specific algorithm (s.9.1(1)(e), s.9.1(8)). - Consumer impact: Mandatory expenditures and compliance costs could be passed through as higher subscription prices or reduced catalogues; the Act does not cap such costs (s.11.1(1)-(2), (6)). Data unavailable on magnitude. - Oversight and transparency: Key CRTC orders are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act, which opponents argue reduces formal regulatory scrutiny compared to traditional regulations (s.9.1(3)). - Data and confidentiality: Broader information demands and sharing with the Minister and Commissioner of Competition may raise privacy and competitive sensitivity concerns despite confidentiality provisions (s.25.1–25.3). - Enforcement risk: Large AMPs and offence fines create compliance risk and uncertainty for new or smaller services entering the Canadian market (s.34.5; s.32–33).

Canada Recognizes Right to Healthy Environment

## Summary This bill updates the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) and the Food and Drugs Act. It recognizes a right to a healthy environment under CEPA, changes how toxic substances are assessed and controlled, and adds new powers over products and drugs that may harm the environment. It also repeals older “virtual elimination” rules and reorganizes the toxic substances list. - Recognizes a right to a healthy environment under CEPA and requires an implementation framework within 2 years of coming into force (Part 1, Implementation framework). - Requires a public plan within 2 years that lists priority substances for assessment, with an 8‑year review cycle (s.73). - Makes assessments consider vulnerable populations and cumulative effects; lets any person request an assessment with a 90‑day response (s.76 request; s.76.1(1)–(2)). - Splits Schedule 1 into Part 1 (highest risk) and Part 2, and directs priority to prohibition for Part 1 substances (s.77(3); s.90(1.1)–(1.2)). - Expands information‑gathering and pollution‑prevention powers to products and certain activities (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, tailings ponds) (s.46(1)(e.1), (k.1)–(k.3); s.56(1)(c)). - Tightens confidentiality rules and allows disclosure of explicit chemical names in defined cases and after 10 years (s.313(2); ss.317.1–317.2). - Adds environmental risk assessment and risk‑management powers for drugs and other therapeutic products (Food and Drugs Act s.11.1; ss.21.2, 21.31–21.33; s.30). ## What it means for you - Households - The federal government must consider a right to a healthy environment when it administers CEPA; details will be set in a framework within 2 years of the relevant section coming into force (Implementation framework). The Act does not create a new private right to sue; existing CEPA participation rights remain (s.15). - More public information via a searchable Environmental Registry and more disclosure of chemical names in set situations and after 10 years (s.13(2); ss.317.1–317.2). - Workers - Facilities handling substances on Schedule 1 may face new or stricter controls, including pollution prevention plans that prioritize safer substitutes where viable (s.56(1), (1.1)). - Assessments must consider vulnerable populations (people more at risk due to exposure or susceptibility) (s.3(1) “vulnerable population”; s.76.1(2)). - Businesses (manufacturers, importers, product makers) - Broader information notices can require data, samples, and testing about substances and products that contain or may release substances (s.71(1)–(2.3)). - Pollution prevention plans can now be required for products containing or releasing listed toxic substances, with progress reports (s.56(1)(c), (6)). - “Significant New Activity” obligations expand; you must notify downstream recipients about obligations when transferring certain substances listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL) (s.87.1(1)). - Confidentiality requests must include reasons; explicit chemical names may be disclosed in specific regulatory steps or after 10 years with notice (s.313(2); ss.317.1–317.2). - Substances of highest risk (Schedule 1, Part 1) face priority for prohibition of activities or releases; plan accordingly for substitutions (s.90(1.1)). - Oil and gas, mining, and heavy industry - The Minister can gather information on hydraulic fracturing and tailings ponds (s.46(1)(k.2)–(k.3)). - New or updated controls may target products that release toxic substances and activities that contribute to pollution (s.93(1)(f)–(q); s.46(1)(k.1)). - Drug and medical product manufacturers - It is prohibited to sell or make a drug with a prescribed substance unless Health Canada has assessed the environmental risk of that substance (Food and Drugs Act s.11.1). - The Minister can order label/package changes, recalls, or information/testing to address serious environmental risks (FDA ss.21.2; 21.31–21.33; s.30(1)(b.01), (l.1)–(l.3), (1.2)(d.01)). - Indigenous peoples and communities - The preamble commits to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent; annual reporting must summarize consultations and reconciliation measures under CEPA (preamble; new report on Indigenous consultations). - Timelines and processes - Priority plan published within 2 years of Royal Assent; reviewed every 8 years (s.73). - Ministers must respond within 90 days to any assessment request (s.76(2.1)). - After proposing a measure for a substance, final publication steps have defined timelines, and delays must be explained publicly (s.77(8); s.91(1); s.92(1)). - Some provisions start on Royal Assent; others start on a date set by Cabinet (Order in Council) (Coming into force). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations are in the bill text (throughout). - The bill creates new duties for Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, including: - Develop and publish an implementation framework for the right to a healthy environment within 2 years, with annual reporting (Implementation framework; s.342 report). - Develop and review a priority plan for substances, compile and update a list of substances suspected of becoming toxic, and process public assessment requests within 90 days (s.73; s.75.1; s.76(2.1)). - Conduct research, studies, or monitoring to support protecting the right to a healthy environment, including biomonitoring and work on vulnerable populations (s.44(3.1); s.45). - Manage expanded information‑gathering, pollution prevention planning, and confidentiality review and reporting (ss.46, 56, 60, 71; s.313(5)). - The bill authorizes new regulatory and compliance obligations for regulated parties (e.g., environmental assessments for certain drugs; reporting and testing for substances and products), but no government cost estimates are provided (FDA s.11.1; CEPA s.71). - Data unavailable on administrative or enforcement costs; no fiscal note identified. ## Proponents' View - Strengthens protections by recognizing a right to a healthy environment under CEPA and requiring a framework, research, and consideration of vulnerable populations and cumulative effects (s.2(1)(a.2); Implementation framework; s.76.1(2)). - Focuses controls on the highest‑risk substances by creating Schedule 1 Part 1 and directing priority to prohibition of activities or releases (s.77(3); s.90(1.1)–(1.2)). - Closes gaps by regulating products that contain or may release toxic substances, enabling life‑cycle controls such as packaging and labelling (s.46(1)(e.1); s.93(1)(f)–(q)). - Improves transparency and accountability: searchable Environmental Registry; reasons required for confidentiality; publication of delays; authority to disclose explicit chemical names in defined circumstances and after 10 years (s.13(2); s.313(2); s.77(8); ss.317.1–317.2). - Reduces animal testing by requiring use of alternative methods where practicable (new restriction on vertebrate animals, s.68.1). - Adds environmental safeguards for drugs and therapeutic products by requiring environmental risk assessments and enabling recalls and label changes to address serious environmental risks (Food and Drugs Act s.11.1; ss.21.2, 21.31–21.33; s.30). ## Opponents' View - The right to a healthy environment is limited to CEPA administration, subject to “reasonable limits,” and may be balanced with social, health, scientific, and economic factors defined later in an implementation framework; it does not create a new private right to sue (s.2(1)(a.2); Implementation framework content; s.15). - Repealing CEPA’s former virtual elimination provisions and the PFOS Virtual Elimination Act could weaken stringency, relying instead on Part 1/Part 2 categorization and ministerial discretion (repeal of ss.65, 65.1; repeal clause; transitional provisions). - Allowing risk management under other federal Acts and by the “best placed” minister may fragment accountability and slow action (e.g., statements identifying other Acts under s.77(6)(c)(ii), s.91(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii); s.84(4)). - Expanded information demands and product controls increase compliance costs and administrative burden for businesses, including testing, reporting, pollution prevention plans, and onward notifications for significant new activities (s.71(1)–(2.3); s.56; s.87.1). - New confidentiality rules, including potential disclosure of explicit chemical names after 10 years, may risk revealing trade secrets despite criteria in s.313(3) (ss.317.1–317.2; s.313(2)–(5)). - Timelines depend on future regulations and orders; while delays must be explained, there are limited automatic consequences if deadlines slip (s.77(8); s.91(1); s.92(1); Coming into force).

Pensions Paid First in Bankruptcies

## Summary This bill, called the Pension Protection Act, changes bankruptcy and restructuring rules to put pension shortfalls and certain group insurance claims ahead of other debts. It also requires an annual federal report on pension plan funding and actions taken to fix underfunded plans. A 4‑year transition delays the new priority for employers already in a pension plan when the law takes effect (Transitional Provisions). - Gives priority to claims for unfunded liabilities and solvency deficiencies in defined benefit pension plans in bankruptcies and restructurings (BIA 60(1.5), 81.5, 81.6; CCAA 6(6)). - Gives priority to claims related to an employer stopping participation in group insurance plans during insolvency (Bill summary). - Requires the Superintendent to report yearly on pension plan solvency and corrective measures, and table the report in Parliament (PBSA s.40). - Applies immediately to employers entering new prescribed pension plans after the law takes effect; applies after 4 years to employers already in such plans (Transitional Provisions). - Extends protection to plans regulated provincially by treating them as if federally regulated for these priority purposes (BIA 60(1.5)(a)(iii)(A.1), 81.5(1)(c)(i.1); CCAA 6(6)(a)(iii)(A.1)). ## What it means for you - Households (retirees and workers in defined benefit plans) - If your employer becomes insolvent, amounts needed to fix a pension funding shortfall must be paid before many other creditors. This includes special payments and any amounts required to eliminate unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies, as measured at filing (BIA 81.5-81.6; CCAA 6(6)). - If your employer stops participating in a group insurance plan during insolvency, related claims get priority in payment (Bill summary). - For employees in plans that existed before the law took effect, this priority starts 4 years after the law comes into force (Transitional Provisions). For plans started after the law takes effect, the priority applies right away. - Workers not in defined benefit plans - Direct pension effects are limited if you are in a defined contribution plan or have no pension. Group insurance cessation claims in insolvency may still get priority (Bill summary). Specific scope is not detailed in the sections provided. - Businesses (employers with defined benefit plans) - In any proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or plan under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, you must ensure pension shortfalls are fully addressed to obtain approval (BIA 60(1.5); CCAA 6(6)). - If you were already in a prescribed pension plan before the law took effect, the new priority does not apply to you for 4 years after the law comes into force (Transitional Provisions). - Lenders, bondholders, suppliers, and other creditors - Your recoveries in an employer insolvency may be lower because pension shortfall and certain group insurance cessation claims are paid ahead of you (BIA 81.5-81.6; CCAA 6(6)). - Governments and regulators - The Superintendent must submit and the Minister must table an annual report on pension funding and corrective actions; the Superintendent must also send the report to provinces (PBSA s.40). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations or new fees in the bill text (Bill text). - New annual reporting duty for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions; administrative cost not stated (PBSA s.40). Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified in the provided materials. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves pension security by requiring full payment of pension deficits before other creditors in insolvency, reducing the chance of pension cuts for retirees and workers (BIA 81.5-81.6; CCAA 6(6)). - Closes a known gap in prior law that prioritized only certain unpaid contributions, by adding unfunded liabilities and solvency deficiencies to priority claims (BIA 60(1.5), 81.5-81.6). - Protects employees’ group insurance-related claims when employers stop participation during insolvency, giving workers a better chance of recovery (Bill summary). - Increases transparency through an annual public report on pension plan solvency and actions taken to fix underfunding, aiding oversight by Parliament and provinces (PBSA s.40). - Provides a 4‑year transition so existing employers can adjust funding strategies and financing arrangements before the new priority applies (Transitional Provisions). ## Opponents' View - Lowers recoveries for unsecured and some secured creditors because pension deficits and certain insurance-related claims must be paid first, which could raise borrowing costs for firms with defined benefit plans (BIA 81.5-81.6; CCAA 6(6)). - May make restructurings harder to complete, since a court cannot approve a plan unless it fully addresses pension shortfalls measured at filing, increasing the risk of liquidation (CCAA 6(6)). - Could encourage employers to close or avoid defined benefit plans to reduce future insolvency risk exposure, potentially shifting workers to less secure retirement arrangements. Data unavailable. - The scope and size of “claims relating to the cessation of an employer’s participation in group insurance plans” are not detailed in the provided sections, creating uncertainty for creditors and courts (Bill summary). - The 4‑year delay creates uneven treatment across employers depending on when they entered a plan, which may complicate lending and covenant structures during the transition (Transitional Provisions).

Ankle monitors in partner violence bail

## Summary Bill C-233 changes bail and judicial education rules to address violence against an intimate partner. It lets prosecutors ask courts to require electronic monitoring as a bail condition and requires judges to consider safety when deciding on release in these cases. It also expands judges’ continuing education to cover intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context, and asks for yearly reporting on these seminars. - Courts may add electronic monitoring (an ankle or similar device that tracks location) as a bail condition when requested by the Attorney General (government prosecutor) (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). - In cases involving violence, including against an intimate partner, judges must consider safety conditions before release (Criminal Code s.515(4.3)(c)). - The Canadian Judicial Council must provide seminars for judges on intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)). - The Council is asked to submit an annual report to the Minister of Justice on these seminars; the Act uses “should submit,” not “must” (Judges Act s.62.1(1)). - The Act takes effect 30 days after Royal Assent (Coming into Force). ## What it means for you - Households - If an accused is charged with an offence against an intimate partner, the court must consider whether to add safety-related conditions before release. This can include electronic monitoring if the prosecutor asks for it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2), s.515(4.3)(c)). Effective 30 days after Royal Assent. - Victims may see more tailored release conditions aimed at safety, such as monitoring or other limits. The judge decides case by case (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)). - Accused persons in intimate partner violence cases - Prosecutors can request electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. The judge must consider whether it is desirable for safety but is not required to order it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). - If monitoring or other conditions are imposed, any breach can lead to arrest and possible revocation of bail under existing Criminal Code rules. - Judges and courts - Judges will have access to new seminars on intimate partner violence, coercive control, and social context, including systemic racism and discrimination (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)). - The Canadian Judicial Council is asked to report each year to the Minister on these seminars (Judges Act s.62.1(1)). - Provincial/territorial justice systems - If courts order electronic monitoring, provincial/territorial programs and police will need to administer and enforce those orders. The bill does not set standards for devices or operations; those remain with existing programs. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit federal appropriation or new fees are included in the bill text. Data unavailable (Bill text). - Judicial education: The Canadian Judicial Council must establish seminars and is asked to produce an annual report. Any costs would come from existing budgets or future appropriations not specified here. Data unavailable (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.62.1(1)). - Electronic monitoring: If ordered by a court, equipment, monitoring, and enforcement are typically handled by provincial/territorial authorities. The bill creates authority to order monitoring but does not fund it. Data unavailable (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). ## Proponents' View - Improves victim safety at the bail stage by requiring judges to consider whether electronic monitoring is desirable when the prosecutor requests it in intimate partner cases (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2); s.515(4.3)(c)). - Gives courts another tool short of detention by allowing monitoring as a condition of release, which can manage risk while preserving pretrial liberty when appropriate (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). Assumes monitoring can substitute for detention in some cases; the bill provides no effectiveness data. - Strengthens judicial understanding of intimate partner violence and coercive control through mandated continuing education (Judges Act s.60(2)(b)). Assumes training improves decision quality; outcomes not measured in the bill. - Increases transparency by asking the Canadian Judicial Council to report yearly on seminars (Judges Act s.62.1(1)). Note: the section uses “should,” which is advisory. ## Opponents' View - Creates an unfunded mandate risk: electronic monitoring orders may increase costs for provinces and police without new federal funding (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)(a.2)). Actual cost impact is not provided. - May expand surveillance and conditions on accused persons before trial, raising concerns about proportionality and presumption of innocence. Effect depends on how often prosecutors request monitoring and how judges apply it (Criminal Code s.515(4.2)). - Technical and operational risks: device availability, network coverage, and false alerts could lead to unintended breaches and added court workload. The bill sets no technical standards; programs vary by jurisdiction. Data unavailable. - Reporting on judicial seminars is advisory (“should submit”), which may limit accountability if reports are delayed or incomplete (Judges Act s.62.1(1)).

New privacy rights and AI safety rules

## Summary Bill C-27 (Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022) would overhaul private‑sector privacy law and set first‑time federal rules for artificial intelligence (AI). It creates three laws: the Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). Most details take effect on dates and regulations set later by the federal government (Coming-into-Force by order in council). - Replaces Part 1 of PIPEDA with the CPPA and renames the rest the Electronic Documents Act (Consequential Amendments). - Creates a new Tribunal to hear appeals of Privacy Commissioner decisions and to set administrative monetary penalties (PIDPTA; CPPA Part 2). - Sets high fines for serious privacy breaches and offences (CPPA Administrative Monetary Penalties; Offences and punishment). - Gives individuals new rights (e.g., data disposal on request, explanations for certain automated decisions, data mobility when frameworks exist) (CPPA Part 1). - Regulates “high‑impact” AI systems with risk controls, record‑keeping, public plain‑language notices, and harm reporting; adds AI‑specific offences (AIDA Part 1–2). ## What it means for you - Households - You can ask businesses what personal data they have about you, how they use it, and to whom they disclosed it. Firms must respond in plain language within 30 days (CPPA Access, Time limit). - You can request disposal (deletion or anonymization) of your data in set cases, and firms must inform service providers to do the same (CPPA Disposal at individual’s request). - If a company uses an automated decision system that significantly affects you, you can request an explanation of the decision, including key factors and data sources (CPPA Access to automated decision system explanation). - You must be told about data breaches that pose a “real risk of significant harm,” such as identity theft or financial loss (CPPA Security safeguards — notification). - A future “data mobility framework” could let you port your data from one service to another once regulations are made (CPPA Data mobility). - Workers (in federally regulated employers only) - Employers that are federal works, undertakings, or businesses can collect, use, or disclose your data without consent if necessary to manage the employment relationship and you are informed (CPPA Employment relationship — FWUBs). - Businesses and non‑profits engaged in commercial activities - You must run a privacy management program, designate a responsible person, train staff, and keep policies available in plain language (CPPA Accountability; Privacy management program; Openness and Transparency). - Consent must be valid and informed. You must not force consent beyond what is needed for a product or service (CPPA Consent; Consent — provision of product or service). - There are narrow no‑consent grounds for specified business activities (security, product safety) and for “legitimate interests” if an assessment shows benefits outweigh adverse effects and records are kept (CPPA Business activities; Legitimate interest and Record of assessment). - Transfers to service providers do not require consent, but you must ensure equivalent protection by contract or other means (CPPA Same protection; Transfer to service provider). - Mandatory breach reporting to the Privacy Commissioner and to affected individuals when risk is significant; keep breach records (CPPA Security safeguards — report, notify, records). - High fines apply for serious contraventions. Administrative penalties can reach the higher of $10,000,000 and 3% of global revenue; offences up to the higher of $25,000,000 and 5% (CPPA Administrative Monetary Penalties — maximum; Offence and punishment). - AI developers, deployers, and managers (interprovincial/international trade) - You must assess if your system is “high‑impact” (to be defined in regulation) and, if so, identify, mitigate, and monitor risks of harm and biased output; keep specified records (AIDA Assessment; Measures related to risks; Monitoring; Keeping records). - If you make a high‑impact system available or manage its operation, you must publish a plain‑language description, including intended use and mitigation measures (AIDA Publication of description). - You must notify the Minister “as soon as feasible” if use results or is likely to result in material harm (to be defined by regulation) (AIDA Notification of material harm). - The Minister can order record production, audits, implementation of measures, public notices, or in urgent cases, cessation of use to prevent serious, imminent harm (AIDA Ministerial orders; Cessation). - Offences include using illegally obtained personal information for AI, and making an AI system available knowing it will likely cause serious harm. Fines can reach the higher of $25,000,000 and 5% of global revenue (AIDA Part 2 — Offences and Punishment). - Local governments and federal institutions - CPPA does not apply to government institutions under the Privacy Act (CPPA Application — Limit). AIDA does not apply to named national security bodies and prescribed entities (AIDA Non‑application). - Timing - Most provisions take effect on dates set by Cabinet and after regulations are made, especially for AI “high‑impact” criteria and data mobility (Coming-into-Force clauses; AIDA regulation-making). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations in the bill text. Implementation relies on future orders and regulations (Coming-into-Force; Regulation-making). - Creates a new federal Tribunal supported by the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (PIDPTA; ATSSC schedule amendment). - Authorizes designation of an Artificial Intelligence and Data Commissioner within ISED to assist the Minister (AIDA Administration). - Administrative monetary penalties are recoverable as debts to the Crown; potential penalty revenue is unknown (CPPA Recovery as debt due to Her Majesty; AIDA AMPs framework by regulation). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---|---|--- Set-up and operation of Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal | Data unavailable | Ongoing | PIDPTA; ATSSC amendment Privacy Commissioner expanded duties (guidance, audits, inquiries) | Data unavailable | Ongoing | CPPA Part 2 (Powers, duties) Artificial Intelligence and Data Commissioner and analysts | Data unavailable | Ongoing | AIDA Administration Penalty revenues (privacy and AI) | Data unavailable | Variable | CPPA Administrative Monetary Penalties; AIDA AMPs/Offences ## Proponents' View - Strengthens privacy rights and enforcement, aligning Canada with major partners. High fines (up to higher of $25,000,000 and 5% of global revenue for offences) create real deterrence (CPPA Offence and punishment; AIDA Punishment). - Clear rules for consent, data disposal, breach notice, and explanations for impactful automated decisions increase trust for consumers (CPPA Consent; Disposal; Security safeguards; Automated decision system explanation). - Creates due process through an expert Tribunal to hear appeals and set penalties, reducing litigation burden on Federal Court (PIDPTA; CPPA Appeals, Imposition of penalty). - Supports innovation with practical tools: codes of practice and certification programs; de‑identified data can be used for internal R&D under safeguards (CPPA Codes of practice and certification; Research, analysis and development). - Introduces baseline AI safety: risk management for high‑impact systems, public transparency notices, and harm reporting to reduce biased outputs and injuries (AIDA Measures related to risks; Publication of description; Notification of material harm). - Flexible, regulation‑first design lets government tailor “high‑impact” criteria and “material harm” definitions as technology evolves (AIDA Regulation-making). ## Opponents' View - Consent exceptions may be broad. “Legitimate interest” collection without consent depends on internal assessments that may be hard to audit, risking over‑collection (CPPA Business activities — Legitimate interest and Record of assessment). - Transfers to service providers without consent and wide disclosure exceptions to government institutions could weaken individual control (CPPA Transfer to service provider; Disclosures to Government Institutions). - Many core AI elements are left to future regulations (e.g., definition of “high‑impact,” required measures, “material harm”), creating uncertainty for developers and users and delaying real protections (AIDA Regulations — Governor in Council; Minister). - Minister’s order powers (including cease‑use orders) are broad and could chill deployment, especially for small firms lacking compliance resources (AIDA Cessation; Ministerial orders). - Overlap and potential conflict with provincial privacy laws (e.g., Quebec Law 25) increase compliance complexity for national firms (CPPA Orders exempting “substantially similar” provincial laws). - Multi‑step enforcement (Commissioner inquiry, Tribunal appeal, then private right of action) could prolong resolution for complainants and add costs for all parties (CPPA Part 2 — Inquiries, Appeals; Private Right of Action).

Provinces Could Collect Federal Income Taxes

## Summary This bill lets the federal Minister of Finance make agreements with provinces so a province can collect federal personal and corporate income taxes and then send the money to Canada. It directs the Minister to start talks with Quebec within 90 days of the law taking effect and to work toward an agreement within one year. It also requires steps to reduce job impacts on affected workers and directs the Minister to seek changes to international tax treaties so a province can get needed tax information directly (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(4); Quebec clause). - Allows a province to administer and collect federal income taxes, with terms set in a future agreement approved by the Governor in Council (federal Cabinet) (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(2)). - Requires measures to mitigate effects on employees affected by the change (Bill, s. 20.1(3)). - Instructs the Minister to seek amendments to tax treaties so a province can access necessary foreign tax information directly (Bill, s. 20.1(4)). - Directs the Minister to begin discussions with Quebec within 90 days and aim to reach an agreement within one year (Quebec clause). - Does not itself create a single tax return; that would depend on a negotiated agreement’s details and timing (Bill, s. 20.1). ## What it means for you - Households (Quebec) - If Quebec and Canada sign an agreement, you would file one personal income tax return with Quebec instead of separate federal and provincial returns. Timing depends on when an agreement is reached and implemented (Bill, s. 20.1; Quebec clause). - Households (other provinces/territories) - No change unless your province later signs a similar agreement under this new authority (Bill, s. 20.1(1)). - Workers (CRA and Revenu Québec) - Federal employees whose work would shift to the province could face job changes. Any agreement must include measures to lessen employment impacts, but the bill does not specify which measures (Bill, s. 20.1(3)). - Provincial tax staff in Quebec could see new duties if Quebec takes on federal tax collection (Bill, s. 20.1(1)). - Businesses (Quebec) - If an agreement is signed, corporations could file a single corporate income tax return with Quebec covering both provincial and federal taxes. Details on forms, audits, and appeals would be set by the agreement (Bill, s. 20.1(1)). - Multi‑province businesses and tax preparers - Administrative processes in Quebec could differ from the rest of Canada if Quebec administers federal taxes while other provinces continue under CRA. The bill leaves process details to the agreement (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(2)). - Cross‑border taxpayers - Access by Quebec to foreign tax information would depend on Canada negotiating changes with other countries to allow direct sharing with the province. Negotiations are required, but outcomes and timelines depend on foreign partners (Bill, s. 20.1(4)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. The bill authorizes agreements but sets no direct appropriations, tax rate changes, or fees (Bill, s. 20.1). - Potential costs include: - Transition and IT integration for shifting administration to a province. Data unavailable. - Measures to mitigate worker impacts (e.g., retraining, relocation). Data unavailable. - Treaty negotiation and implementation costs. Data unavailable. - Any savings from reduced duplication would depend on future agreement terms. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Simplifies filing for Quebec residents by enabling a single income tax return handled by the province, reducing paperwork and confusion (Preamble; Bill, s. 20.1(1)). - Cuts administrative duplication between CRA and Revenu Québec, which could lower long‑term costs; savings would come from one set of forms, processing, and audits. Quantified estimates not provided in the bill (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(2)). - Respects Quebec’s stated preference to administer a single return; directs the federal government to engage quickly (Preamble; Quebec clause). - Protects workers by requiring employment impact mitigation as a condition of any agreement (Bill, s. 20.1(3)). - Maintains federal revenue by requiring the province to remit collected federal taxes under agreed terms (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(2)). ## Opponents' View - Implementation risk: Moving federal tax administration to a province is complex and could disrupt service during transition; the bill leaves key operational details to later agreements (Bill, s. 20.1(1)–(2)). - International constraints: Access to foreign tax data requires amending many treaties or agreements; outcomes and timelines depend on other countries and are not guaranteed (Bill, s. 20.1(4)). - Fiscal uncertainty: Transition, IT, and workforce measures could be costly; the bill provides no cost estimates or funding mechanism. Data unavailable (Bill, s. 20.1(3)). - Administrative fragmentation: Different tax administration systems across provinces could increase compliance complexity for national firms and tax preparers, depending on future agreements (Bill, s. 20.1(1)). - Workforce impact: Federal tax jobs in Quebec could be reduced or shifted; mitigation is required but unspecified, creating uncertainty for employees (Bill, s. 20.1(3)).

Year-end $4.7B to keep services running

## Summary This bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $4,680,112,624 to cover extra 2022–23 costs that were not already funded, based on Supplementary Estimates (C). It is a supply bill (permission to spend public money) that keeps programs and services running through March 31, 2023, with some items allowed to be paid through March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2). It does not change tax rates or set new programs; it funds existing purposes listed in the Estimates (Bill — Amount granted; Schedule 1; Schedule 2). - Funds major top-ups for National Defence ($897.7 million), Indigenous Services ($764.1 million), and Foreign Affairs ($589.1 million) (Schedule 1). - Supports Immigration operations and grants ($318.9 million), Employment and Social Development ($302.6 million), Health ($180.3 million), and Public Safety ($145.8 million) (Schedule 1). - Lets the government write off 23,142 defaulted student/apprentice loan debts totaling $227.5 million (accounting action) (Schedule 1 — ESDC Vote 10c). - Allows up to $115.0 million for the World Bank’s Ukraine Multi-Donor Trust Fund and up to $338.2 million to international financial institutions (Schedule 1 — Finance Vote 15c; Foreign Affairs Vote 20c). - Gives the Canada Revenue Agency ($337.2 million) and Canada Border Services Agency ($40.9 million) funding that can be spent through March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2). ## What it means for you - Households - Student and apprentice borrowers with very old, uncollectible debts: Government writes off 23,142 debts totaling $227,472,139. This is an accounting step under the Financial Administration Act. It does not create a new benefit or application process (Schedule 1 — ESDC Vote 10c). - Veterans and families: Veterans Affairs gets $97,427,000 for grants and contributions and $1,411,000 for operations to support existing programs; no new benefit rules are set in this bill (Schedule 1 — VAC). - Health users: Health Canada and the Public Health Agency receive $212,926,000 combined for operations and contributions to maintain services; no new entitlements are created (Schedule 1 — Health; PHAC). - Immigration clients: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada receives $318,913,000 for operations, capital, and grants/contributions. This supports services listed in the Estimates; the bill does not specify recipients (Schedule 1 — IRCC). - Workers - Federal employees and contractors: Departments receive operating funds to pay staff and suppliers through year‑end (e.g., National Defence $616.8 million operating; Health $176.6 million; IRCC $114.3 million) (Schedule 1). - Researchers and students: Granting councils get added funds (NSERC $21.7 million; SSHRC $12.0 million). The National Research Council gets $59.5 million for grants/contributions, including for the Thirty Meter Telescope (Schedule 1). - Businesses - Suppliers: More procurement opportunities where capital or operating funds increase (e.g., Defence $20.3 million capital; Transport $26.7 million capital) (Schedule 1). - Regulated firms: Added operating funds for regulators may affect service times and oversight (Canadian Food Inspection Agency $27.6 million; Canadian Energy Regulator $9.2 million; Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission $3.6 million) (Schedule 1). - Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation: Authorized to borrow from non‑government lenders; no amount specified (Schedule 1 — FFMC). - Local and Indigenous governments - Indigenous communities: Indigenous Services gets $692,039,922 for grants/contributions; Crown‑Indigenous Relations gets $62,153,389 for grants/contributions. Uses are as listed in the Estimates, not detailed in the bill (Schedule 1). - Provinces/municipalities: Smaller contributions may flow via Transport ($19,306,536), Fisheries and Oceans ($2,250,000), Infrastructure Canada ($7,279,352), and Parks Canada programs, as listed in the Estimates (Schedule 1). - Service users - Taxpayers and travelers: CRA ($337,177,267) and CBSA ($40,858,545) receive funds that can be spent up to March 31, 2024 to support operations (Schedule 2). - International assistance: Up to $115,000,000 to the World Bank’s Ukraine fund and up to $338,181,748 to international financial institutions; not domestic programs (Schedule 1 — Finance Vote 15c; Foreign Affairs Vote 20c). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $4,680,112,624 (FY2022–23), of which $378,035,812 may be spent through March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2). - Total voted in Schedule 1: $4,302,076,812 (Schedule 1). - Total voted in Schedule 2: $378,035,812 (Schedule 2). - Key items are summarized below. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Total appropriations (Schedules 1+2) | $4,680,112,624 | One-time (FY2022–23; some to FY2023–24) | Bill; Schedule 1; Schedule 2 National Defence (ops, capital, grants) | $897,676,257 | One-time | Schedule 1 — DND Indigenous Services (ops; grants/contributions) | $764,123,013 | One-time | Schedule 1 — ISC Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (incl. humanitarian, development, trade) | $589,123,302 | One-time | Schedule 1 — DFATD Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada | $318,912,891 | One-time | Schedule 1 — IRCC Employment and Social Development (incl. loan write-off item) | $302,579,993 | One-time | Schedule 1 — ESDC Health Canada | $180,260,493 | One-time | Schedule 1 — Health Public Safety (ops; grants/contributions) | $145,801,666 | One-time | Schedule 1 — Public Safety Veterans Affairs (ops; grants/contributions) | $97,426,999 | One-time | Schedule 1 — VAC Fisheries and Oceans (ops; capital; grants/contributions) | $103,644,865 | One-time | Schedule 1 — DFO Transport Canada (ops; capital; contributions) | $73,154,052 | One-time | Schedule 1 — Transport Canada Revenue Agency (Schedule 2) | $337,177,267 | Available to Mar 31, 2024 | Schedule 2 — CRA Canada Border Services Agency (Schedule 2) | $40,858,545 | Available to Mar 31, 2024 | Schedule 2 — CBSA World Bank Ukraine Multi‑Donor Trust Fund (cap) | $115,000,000 | One-time cap | Schedule 1 — Finance Vote 15c International financial institutions (cap) | $338,181,748 | One-time cap | Schedule 1 — DFATD Vote 20c Write‑off of student/apprentice loan debts (23,142 accounts) | $227,472,139 | One-time accounting adjustment (no cash outlay) | Schedule 1 — ESDC Vote 10c Notes: - Each item must be spent only for the purpose listed in the Estimates (Bill — Purpose of each item). - Many votes say “grants listed in any of the Estimates.” Specific recipients are in Supplementary Estimates (C), not in the bill (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 items can be paid until March 31, 2024; unspent balances then lapse (Bill — Schedule 2; Order of payment). ## Proponents' View - Ensures essential services continue by topping up departments before year‑end, a normal step in the supply cycle (Bill — Amount granted; Schedule 1). - Targets urgent pressures, including Indigenous services ($692.0 million in grants/contributions) and defence ($897.7 million), which proponents say address health, infrastructure, and security needs (Schedule 1 — ISC; DND). - Supports international commitments, including up to $115.0 million for Ukraine’s World Bank fund and up to $338.2 million for international financial institutions (Schedule 1 — Finance Vote 15c; DFATD Vote 20c). - Cleans up the public accounts by writing off long‑uncollectible student/apprentice loan debts ($227.5 million; 23,142 accounts), improving financial reporting (Schedule 1 — ESDC Vote 10c). - Allows CRA and CBSA to carry funds into 2023–24 to maintain operations during peak periods, reducing rushed year‑end spending (Schedule 2). ## Opponents' View - Limited transparency in the bill text: many lines authorize “grants listed in any of the Estimates” without naming programs or recipients; Parliament votes large sums with details only in Supplementary Estimates (C) (Schedule 1). - Retroactive effect (items deemed effective April 1, 2022) and broad transfer authorities may reduce real‑time scrutiny of changes (Bill — Effective date; Transfers of appropriations). - Risk of year‑end rush or lapses: most funds must be spent by March 31, 2023, except Schedule 2; hurried spending can reduce value for money (Bill — Schedule 2; Lapse rule). - Foreign assistance caps (up to $115.0 million and up to $338.2 million) may draw concern about prioritizing international over domestic uses within a late‑year package (Schedule 1 — Finance Vote 15c; DFATD Vote 20c). - The loan “write‑off” item is an accounting action, not targeted relief; critics may argue it does not fix causes of defaults or improve current borrower supports (Schedule 1 — ESDC Vote 10c).

Interim funding keeps federal services running

## Summary This bill (Appropriation Act No. 1, 2023–24) gives the federal government spending authority of up to CAD $89,678,492,027 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. It is “interim supply,” meaning it provides a portion of departments’ annual budgets so programs and services can continue early in the fiscal year, based on the Main Estimates (the government’s detailed annual spending plan) (Summary; pp. 1–2). - Authorizes payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (the federal bank account) for many departments and agencies, using the “one-twelfth” method to limit early-year spending (clauses (a)–(i)). - Sets different fractions for specific items (from 3/12 up to 12/12) to meet urgent needs (Schedules 1.1–1.8). - Allows certain appropriations (CBSA and CRA) to be used through March 31, 2025, and sets an order-of-payment rule for them (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Permits standard “re-spend” authorities so some departments can use the revenues they collect to offset their costs (multiple Votes across Schedules). - Includes a Government Contingencies vote of $687,500,000 to handle urgent or unforeseen needs (Schedule 1.7). ## What it means for you - Households - Federal services and programs continue without interruption during 2023–24, because departments receive early-year funding (clauses (a)–(i)). - Airport screening continues via the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority funding (six twelfths; Schedule 1.3). - VIA Rail passenger services continue under operating and capital payments (four twelfths; Schedule 1.1). - Public health operations and grants continue through the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada (Schedules 1.3 and 1.1). - Arts and research grants (Canada Council for the Arts; research councils) continue at interim levels (Schedules 1.2, 1.1). - Workers - Federal employees, contractors, and funded service providers can be paid because their departments have interim appropriations (clauses (a)–(i)). - Statistics Canada, RCMP, and other agencies maintain operations with interim funds (Schedules 1.4, 1.2, 1.7). - Businesses and nonprofits - Suppliers and project partners to departments like Shared Services Canada, Public Works, and Infrastructure-related authorities can continue work and receive payments (Schedules 1.1, 1.1, 1.3). - Grant and contribution recipients in areas like employment programs, research, culture, and transportation can receive interim funding (Schedules 1.3, 1.1, 1.2, 1.1). - Indigenous governments and communities - Significant interim funding flows to Indigenous Services and Crown-Indigenous Relations for operations, grants, and contributions (Schedules 1.5, 1.6, 1.7). - Items include 11/12 of Indigenous Services operating ($21,507,016,194) and 9/12 of Indigenous Services grants and contributions ($11,993,183,612) (Schedule 1.7; Schedule 1.5). - Contributions under Crown-Indigenous Relations (10/12 totaling $4,042,639,040) continue (Schedule 1.6). - Travelers and border users - Border operations and capital projects at CBSA continue under a two‑year appropriation that can be paid through March 31, 2025 (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority receives interim payments to advance the crossing project (five twelfths; Schedule 1.2). ## Expenses Estimated gross spending authority: CAD $89,678,492,027 (FY2023–24), with $1,751,269,975 of two-year appropriations usable through March 31, 2025. - Key figures from the bill (interim supply by schedule and notable items): Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | ---:| --- | --- Total interim appropriation | $89,678,492,027 | FY2023–24 | Bill, “$89,678,492,027 granted for 2023–24” General 3/12 tranche (all other items) | $23,752,533,318 | FY2023–24 | Clause (a) Schedule 1.1 (4/12) | $7,287,537,872 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.1 Schedule 1.2 (5/12) | $4,961,276,773 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.2 Schedule 1.3 (6/12) | $7,193,709,994 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.3 Schedule 1.4 (7/12) | $701,016,431 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.4 Schedule 1.5 (9/12) | $14,949,847,633 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.5 Schedule 1.6 (10/12) | $4,042,639,040 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.6 Schedule 1.7 (11/12) | $26,789,930,964 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.7 Schedule 1.8 (12/12) | $2 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.8 Government Contingencies | $687,500,000 | FY2023–24 | Schedule 1.7 Two-year appropriations (CBSA, CRA) | $1,751,269,975 | Payable to March 31, 2025 | Schedule 2; Order of payment (2) - Lapse/adjustments: - Most appropriations lapse at year-end, with limited post‑year accounting adjustments allowed before tabling the Public Accounts (Adjustments clauses). - Schedule 2 items can be paid up to March 31, 2025; uncharged balances then lapse, subject to Financial Administration Act adjustments (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). ## Proponents' View - Maintains essential services and payments early in the fiscal year, preventing service disruptions while full-year supply is finalized (clauses (a)–(i)). - Uses the “one‑twelfth” control to limit early spending, with higher fractions only where needed (e.g., 11/12 for Indigenous Services operations totaling $21,507,016,194) (Schedule 1.7). - Provides significant interim funding for grants and contributions that support people and communities, such as Employment and Social Development ($4,946,142,541 at 6/12) and Indigenous Services ($11,993,183,612 at 9/12) (Schedule 1.3; Schedule 1.5). - Keeps national transportation and security functions operating, including CATSA (6/12), RCMP operations (5/12), and VIA Rail (4/12) (Schedules 1.3, 1.2, 1.1). - Two-year authority for CBSA and CRA improves project planning and cash flow for large, ongoing operations and capital work (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Re-spend authorities let departments offset costs with the revenues they collect (e.g., service fees), which can reduce pressure on voted funds (multiple Votes across Schedules). ## Opponents' View - Authorizes very large sums with limited debate on individual programs; interim supply bundles many items into a single vote structure (Summary; Schedules 1.1–1.8). - Front-loading some items at 9–11 twelfths (e.g., $26,789,930,964 in Schedule 1.7) reduces later parliamentary leverage to adjust those budgets (Schedule 1.7). - Government Contingencies ($687,500,000) gives broad discretion to supplement other appropriations and fund urgent or unforeseen items, which can dilute line-by-line oversight (Schedule 1.7). - Two-year appropriations and post‑year “adjustments in accounts” rules can make spending less transparent across fiscal years, even if they do not require new payments from the fund (Adjustments clauses; Schedule 2). - Widespread “re-spend” authorities may weaken appropriations control by allowing departments to increase available resources when revenues rise, with limited real-time scrutiny (multiple Votes citing Financial Administration Act s.29.1).

Employment Insurance sickness benefits extended to 52 weeks

## Summary This bill changes the Employment Insurance (EI) Act to raise the maximum length of EI sickness benefits from 15 to 52 weeks for people who cannot work due to illness, injury, or quarantine. It amends two EI provisions to set the new 52‑week limit for both regular employees and self‑employed people who opt into EI special benefits. It also includes a coordinating clause so its changes prevail over related timing provisions in the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 (BIA 2021) (Coordinating Amendment). - Raises the EI sickness benefit cap from 15 to 52 weeks (Paragraph 12(3)(c); Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). - Applies to both insured employees and self‑employed participants in EI special benefits (Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). - Does not change the benefit rate, eligibility test, or maximum insurable earnings; only the maximum weeks (Bill text limits changes to paragraphs setting “maximum number of weeks”). - Includes a clause to avoid conflict with BIA 2021 timing provisions (Coordinating Amendment (2)–(3)). ## What it means for you - Households / Workers - If you qualify for EI sickness benefits, you could receive up to 52 weeks instead of 15 weeks for illness, injury, or quarantine (Paragraph 12(3)(c)). - The weekly payment formula and earnings cap remain the same; the bill does not change the benefit rate or eligibility rules (Bill text only amends maximum weeks). - Start date: The bill does not set a special start date. If no other clause applies, Acts without a coming‑into‑force clause take effect on Royal Assent. The coordinating clause manages overlap with BIA 2021 sections (Coordinating Amendment (2)–(3)). Data unavailable on transitional rules for existing claims. - Self‑employed individuals who opted into EI special benefits - You would also be eligible for up to 52 weeks of sickness benefits under the voluntary EI special benefits regime (Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). - No change to opt‑in requirements or contribution rules is included in the bill (Bill text only amends maximum weeks). - Employers - Payroll processes for EI deductions continue as usual; the bill does not set premium rates or new reporting duties (Bill text). - Over time, total EI sickness benefit payouts would likely rise. Future EI premium rates are set separately by the EI Commission, not by this bill. Data unavailable on timing or size of any rate changes. - Service users - Service Canada would need to administer longer‑duration sickness claims. The bill does not include service standards or system changes. Data unavailable on processing impacts. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or official cost estimate is provided in the bill text. Data unavailable. - The bill contains no direct appropriation; EI benefits are statutory and paid from the EI Operating Account (Bill structure). - Increasing the maximum from 15 to 52 weeks would increase total EI sickness benefit payouts to the extent claimants use additional weeks (Paragraph 12(3)(c); Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). Data unavailable on magnitude. - EI premium rates are not set by this bill; any future rate adjustments would be determined through the established rate‑setting process. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Extending the cap to 52 weeks gives workers who remain ill beyond 15 weeks continued income support, reducing gaps during recovery (Paragraph 12(3)(c); Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). - Applies equally to employees and self‑employed EI participants, ensuring consistent treatment across EI sickness benefits (Paragraph 152.14(1)(c)). - The change is simple and targeted: it only alters the maximum weeks, leaving other EI rules intact, which may ease implementation (Bill text). - The coordinating clause prevents conflict with BIA 2021 timing provisions, clarifying that the 52‑week limit governs if both laws would otherwise overlap (Coordinating Amendment (2)–(3)). ## Opponents' View - Longer maximum durations will raise EI sickness benefit expenditures and could put upward pressure on future EI premium rates for workers and employers; the bill provides no offsetting savings or funding source (Bill text; no fiscal note). - The bill does not include transition rules, which may create unequal treatment between claims opened before and after coming into force (Bill text lacks transitional provisions). - Administrative systems and staffing may need adjustments to handle longer claims, creating implementation risk and potential processing delays. Data unavailable. - The bill does not address interactions with other income‑replacement programs (e.g., employer long‑term disability plans), leaving coordination questions to existing practice. Data unavailable.

Court-Recommended Prison Addiction Treatment Placement

## Summary This bill would let a sentencing court recommend that some federal inmates serve all or part of their sentence in a penitentiary area designated for addiction treatment. It updates the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) to define and set rules for these facilities, require placement “as soon as reasonably possible,” and fold addiction-related needs into correctional planning. It also lets the federal government make agreements with provinces to deliver treatment programs. - Courts may recommend placement in a designated addiction treatment facility if strict conditions are met and the person consents (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)). - People convicted of serious offences are not eligible for a recommendation (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)(d)-(e)). - Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) must ensure recommended individuals are placed in a designated facility as soon as reasonably possible (CCRA, new section after s. 28). - The CSC Commissioner may designate a penitentiary or part of one as an addiction treatment facility; its purpose is curative treatment for problematic substance use and related services (CCRA s. 30.1(1)-(2)). - CSC can transfer inmates within or between penitentiaries to reach a designated facility (CCRA s. 29(b.1)). - Correctional plans must consider court-forwarded substance use information; mental health assessments must occur within 30 days and include substance use needs (CCRA s. 15.1(1.1), s. 15.1(2.01)). - “Health care” now explicitly includes care provided as part of an addiction treatment program in a designated facility (CCRA s. 85). ## What it means for you - Households - If a family member receives a federal sentence and meets the criteria, they can ask the court to recommend placement in an addiction treatment facility. If the court recommends, CSC must place them as soon as reasonably possible (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)-(2); CCRA, new section after s. 28). - People convicted of offences with a maximum of 14 years or life, or certain 10‑year maximum offences involving bodily harm, drug trafficking/production/import/export, or a weapon, cannot get a recommendation (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)(d)-(e)). - Incarcerated people - You must request the recommendation, consent to treatment, show evidence of a pattern of behaviour where problematic substance use contributed to your justice involvement, and satisfy the court that the placement fits sentencing principles (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)(a)-(c)). - The court will send CSC its reasons and any reports or other relevant information to help administer your sentence (Criminal Code s. 743.11(2)). - CSC must develop your correctional plan considering substance use information from the court and refer you for a mental health assessment within 30 days, including any needs related to substance use (CCRA s. 15.1(1.1), s. 15.1(2.01)). - Judges and lawyers - Sentencing courts gain a new, discretionary recommendation tool for eligible cases. The court must assess evidence, consent, offence exclusions, and consistency with s. 718–718.201 sentencing principles (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)). - Courts must document and forward reasons and relevant reports to CSC (Criminal Code s. 743.11(2)). - Correctional staff and CSC - CSC must ensure timely placement of recommended persons into designated facilities and may transfer inmates within or across penitentiaries to do so (CCRA, new section after s. 28; s. 29(b.1)). - The Commissioner may designate entire penitentiaries or areas as addiction treatment facilities and oversee programs with a curative treatment purpose (CCRA s. 30.1(1)-(2)). - Regulations may set rules for confinement in designated facilities, including how to decide, in consultation with addiction treatment experts, whether to alter treatment or keep someone in the facility (CCRA s. 96(f.1)). - Provinces and program providers - The federal Minister may enter agreements with provinces to provide addiction treatment programs in designated facilities and make payments for those programs (CCRA s. 30.1(3)). - Timing - When it takes effect: Data unavailable. ## Expenses - At a glance: Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriation or dollar amounts are in the bill text. - CSC is given a duty to ensure placement in a designated facility when a court makes a recommendation (CCRA, new section after s. 28). - The Commissioner may designate facilities and the Governor in Council may make regulations on confinement and treatment decisions in designated facilities (CCRA s. 30.1; s. 96(f.1)). - The Minister may enter agreements with provinces and make payments for program delivery (CCRA s. 30.1(3)). - No official fiscal note is attached to the bill text. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - The bill targets people whose crimes are linked to problematic substance use and who consent to treatment, while excluding serious offences. This focuses resources on suitable cases (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)(a)-(e)). - It creates a clear pathway: court recommendation, reasons and reports sent to CSC, and a statutory duty for CSC to place the person as soon as reasonably possible (Criminal Code s. 743.11(2); CCRA, new section after s. 28). - It embeds addiction treatment into correctional plans and health care, and requires a mental health assessment within 30 days that considers substance use needs (CCRA s. 15.1(1.1), s. 15.1(2.01), s. 85). - It establishes a national framework by allowing CSC to designate facilities and the Minister to make agreements with provinces for program delivery and payment (CCRA s. 30.1(1)-(3)). - Proponents expect improved rehabilitation and public safety from treatment-focused custody. Assumption; Data unavailable. ## Opponents' View - The bill sets no funding levels and no specific timelines; “as soon as reasonably possible” is not defined. Opponents warn this could lead to delays or uneven access across regions (CCRA, new section after s. 28). Assumption about effects; Data unavailable. - Many people with substance use issues will be ineligible due to offence exclusions, including certain drug and weapons cases or offences causing bodily harm (Criminal Code s. 743.11(1)(d)-(e)). - CSC must stand up and manage designated facilities and transfers without new funding in the bill text, which could strain operations or displace other programs. Assumption; Data unavailable. - Courts must forward reasons, reports, and “any other information relevant” to CSC, which opponents may see as broad and raising privacy concerns (Criminal Code s. 743.11(2)). Assumption about risk; Data unavailable. - Provincial program agreements are optional, not required. Access could vary depending on provincial participation (CCRA s. 30.1(3)). Assumption about variability; Data unavailable.

New Offence: Lying in Identity Checks

## Summary This bill would add a new Criminal Code offence for lying during anti–money laundering identity checks. It targets people who give false or misleading information—by statement or by leaving out facts—about who they are or who owns or controls a company, when a bank or other regulated organization must verify identity under federal law (PCMLTFA s.6.1). Penalties range from fines to prison time, with higher penalties for serious cases (Bill, new “Identity verification” offence, subs. (1)-(2)). - Makes it a crime to knowingly give false or misleading identity or ownership information to PCMLTFA-regulated entities like banks, casinos, securities dealers, money services businesses, real estate brokers, accountants, and dealers in precious metals and stones (PCMLTFA s.5; Bill, subs. (1)). - Covers direct lies, indirect lies through others, and lies by omission (Bill, subs. (1)). - Applies to identity checks required by law, including details on ownership, control, or structure of a company (PCMLTFA s.6.1; Bill, subs. (1)). - Maximum penalties: fine up to CAD $1,000,000 or up to 10 years in prison for an indictable offence; or, on summary conviction, fine up to $10,000 or up to 2 years less a day in prison (Bill, subs. (2)). - Does not change what banks and other entities must collect; it creates a client-side criminal offence for lying during those checks (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1). ## What it means for you - Households - If you open an account, send large transfers, buy real estate, or do other transactions that trigger identity checks, you must not knowingly give false or misleading information, including leaving out key facts (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1). - Honest mistakes are not covered; the offence requires that you act “knowingly” (Bill, subs. (1)). - Small business owners, company directors, and beneficial owners - When a bank or other regulated entity asks who owns or controls your company, you must give accurate information on ownership, control, and structure. Knowingly giving false or incomplete information would be a crime (Bill, subs. (1)). - Using another person to pass along false information would still be covered, because the bill includes indirect statements (Bill, subs. (1)). - Workers and intermediaries acting for clients - If you pass client identity or ownership information to a regulated entity, knowingly relaying false or misleading information could expose you to criminal liability, even if the falsehood comes through you from someone else (Bill, subs. (1)). - Regulated entities under PCMLTFA (e.g., banks, credit unions, life insurers, securities dealers, money services businesses, casinos, real estate brokers, accountants, dealers in precious metals and stones) - Your existing identity verification duties do not change under this bill. The new offence applies to the person or entity providing information to you (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.5, s.6.1). - Timing - If enacted without a delayed coming-into-force clause, the offence would take effect on Royal Assent under the federal Interpretation Act (general rule). Data unavailable on the bill’s current status. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or official cost estimate identified. - The bill adds a Criminal Code offence but does not include appropriations or fees (Bill, subs. (1)-(2)). - Potential impacts on policing, prosecutions, legal aid, and courts: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Closes a gap by criminalizing lies told to banks and other regulated entities during identity checks, including about beneficial owners, which current law does not expressly cover in the Criminal Code (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1). - Deters the use of nominees and shell companies by making false ownership information a stand‑alone crime, with penalties up to $1,000,000 or 10 years for serious cases (Bill, subs. (2)). - Supports anti–money laundering and anti-terrorist financing compliance by making it riskier to submit false KYC (know-your-customer) data, including omissions (Bill, subs. (1)). - Provides prosecutorial flexibility: the Crown can proceed by indictment for serious conduct or by summary conviction for less serious cases (Bill, subs. (2)). ## Opponents' View - Overlap concern: existing Criminal Code offences (e.g., fraud, forgery, uttering forged documents) and PCMLTFA-related enforcement may already address deceptive conduct, making a new offence unnecessary. Data unavailable on proven gaps. - Enforcement challenge: proving that a person “knowingly” gave false or misleading information, especially for omissions or complex ownership structures, may limit effectiveness (Bill, subs. (1)). - Penalty proportionality: maximum penalties (up to $1,000,000 or 10 years) could be seen as high relative to the underlying conduct when no financial loss is shown (Bill, subs. (2)). - Scope and clarity: terms like “misleading” and coverage of indirect statements and omissions may create uncertainty and uneven application across sectors (Bill, subs. (1)).

Budget bill boosts housing, ends student interest

## Summary This federal budget bill (Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022) makes wide tax and program changes. It targets housing, student debt, clean energy, mining, cannabis/vaping duties, banking taxes, charities, and First Nation land management. It also sets up funding for the Canada Growth Fund. - Housing: new anti‑flipping rule, Tax‑Free First Home Savings Account (FHSA), double the First‑Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, and a Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit (Part 1). - Students/apprentices: permanent elimination of interest on federal student and apprentice loans starting April 1, 2023 (Part 4, Div. 5). - Banks/insurers: a one‑time “Canada Recovery Dividend” and a permanent 1.5% tax rate increase on income over $100 million (Part 1). - Natural resources and clean tech: 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit; extend clean‑energy write‑offs to air‑source heat pumps (Part 1). - Cannabis/vaping: quarterly duty remittances for some cannabis licensees; new stamping/marking rules for vaping (Part 2). - First Nations land: enacts the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management and repeals the prior Act (Part 4, Div. 3). - Creates Canada Growth Fund structure and authorizes up to CAD $2 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (Part 4, Div. 1). ## What it means for you - Households and homebuyers - Anti‑flipping rule: Profit on a Canadian home sold within 365 days is taxed as business income; losses denied. Life‑event exceptions apply (death, divorce, new job, etc.). Applies to sales after 2022 (Part 1, s. 12(12)–(14)). - FHSA: First‑time buyers can contribute up to $8,000/year, $40,000 lifetime, with tax‑deductible contributions and tax‑free withdrawals for a first home (starts April 1, 2023). Excess contributions face a 1%/month tax (Part 1, s. 146.6; s. 207.021). - First‑Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit: Base amount increased to $10,000 for 2022+, worth up to $1,500 (Part 1, s. 118.05(3)). - Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit: 15% credit on up to $50,000 to build a secondary unit for a senior (65+) or an adult with a disability to live with a relative; max benefit $7,500; one claim per qualifying individual (2023+) (Part 1, s. 122.92). - Underused Housing Tax vacation property exemption: Properties in certain rural areas used at least 28 days/year can be exempt (2022+) (Part 3; UHT Regulations). - Students and apprentices - No interest on Canada Student Loans and Canada Apprentice Loans starting April 1, 2023. Interest accrued before that date still owed (Part 4, Div. 5). - Clarifies repayment timing during the 2021‑2023 interest suspension for apprentice loans (Part 4, Div. 5). - Families using fertility services - Medical Expense Tax Credit expanded to include eligible Canadian surrogacy and donor costs and fees to fertility clinics/donor banks for 2022+ (Part 1, s. 118.2(2.21), (2)(v)). - Seniors and people with disabilities - May benefit from the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit if moving into a new secondary unit with a relative (Part 1, s. 122.92). - Small businesses - More access to the small business tax rate as the phase‑out now runs up to $50 million in taxable capital (for years beginning on/after April 7, 2022) (Part 1, s. 125(5.1)(a)). - Banks, life insurers, and their customers/investors - Canada Recovery Dividend: a temporary, one‑time 15% tax based on average 2020–2021 taxable income over $1 billion, payable over five years (2022 tax year) (Part VI.2). - Additional 1.5% tax on taxable income over $100 million (years ending after April 7, 2022) (Part 1, s. 123.6). - Investors and charities - 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow‑through share investors on specified Canadian critical‑mineral exploration (agreements Apr 7, 2022–Mar 31, 2027) (Part 1, s. 127(9)). - Charities’ disbursement quota increased to 5% for investment assets above $1,000,000; 3.5% remains below that; Minister can reduce on application (for years starting Jan 1, 2023) (Part 1, s. 149.1). - Cannabis and vaping producers/retailers - Eligible cannabis licensees can remit excise duty quarterly instead of monthly (from April 1, 2022), and licensed transfers of packaged, unstamped product are allowed under authorized service agreements (Part 2). - New marking/stamping and storage rules for vaping products (Part 2). - Trusts and simple “bare trust” arrangements - Many Canadian “express” trusts, including certain bare trusts, must file annual returns listing trustees, settlors, beneficiaries, and controlling persons for years ending after December 30, 2023; penalties apply (Part 1, s. 150(1.2), 163(5)–(6)). - Non‑resident sellers of Canadian residential property - CRA can refuse the clearance certificate if Underused Housing Tax filings or payments for the property are outstanding (Part 1, s. 116(8)). ## Expenses Estimated net fiscal impact: Mixed (new spending and tax relief; new revenues from bank/insurer taxes). Overall net: Data unavailable. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Canada Growth Fund share purchase authority | CAD $2,000,000,000 | One-time cap | Part 4, Div. 1 Eliminate interest on federal student/apprentice loans | CAD $2.7 billion over 5 years; about $556 million/year ongoing | Ongoing program cost | Fall Economic Statement 2022 (Chapter 3) Bank/insurer taxes (Canada Recovery Dividend + 1.5% add‑on) | Data unavailable | Revenue-raising | Part 1; Budget 2022 (context) FHSA and housing tax changes (net) | Data unavailable | Ongoing revenue impact | Part 1 Cannabis duty timing (quarterly remittance) | Data unavailable | May shift cash flow | Part 2 Notes: - The bill text sets the CAD $2.0 billion authority for Canada Growth Fund shares (Part 4, Div. 1). - Fiscal cost of student loan interest elimination is from the federal Fall Economic Statement 2022 (official) (FES 2022, Chapter 3). - Other measure-by-measure fiscal impacts are not stated in the bill text. Public budget documents provide context but not all itemized figures in this bill. Where not certain, “Data unavailable.” ## Proponents' View - Eases first‑time home purchases: FHSA allows $8,000/year, $40,000 lifetime, with deductible contributions and tax‑free withdrawals; the Home Buyers’ Credit doubles to $10,000 base (worth up to $1,500) (Part 1, s. 146.6; s. 118.05(3)). - Curbs rapid flipping: Profits on homes sold within 1 year are fully taxable as business income, with clear life‑event exceptions (sales after 2022) (Part 1, s. 12(12)–(14)). - Supports multigenerational living: 15% credit on up to $50,000 to add a secondary unit for a senior or adult with a disability, up to $7,500 back (2023+) (Part 1, s. 122.92). - Reduces student debt burden: Permanently ends interest on federal student and apprentice loans starting April 1, 2023; FES 2022 estimated a 5‑year cost of about CAD $2.7 billion, directly lowering borrowers’ costs (Part 4, Div. 5; FES 2022). - Raises revenue from largest financial institutions: One‑time 15% Canada Recovery Dividend and a 1.5% permanent surcharge on income over $100 million (years ending after April 7, 2022) (Part VI.2; Part 1, s. 123.6). - Accelerates critical minerals and clean energy: 30% exploration credit for specified critical minerals and tax measures for air‑source heat pumps (Part 1, s. 127(9); Regs Class 43.1). ## Opponents' View - Housing demand may rise faster than supply: FHSA and a larger credit could boost demand and prices unless supply grows; the bill does not add housing units (assumption risk) (Part 1). - Anti‑flipping rule could catch valid short‑term sales: Despite exceptions, some urgent personal or market reasons may not qualify; losses are denied, increasing tax risk (Part 1, s. 12(14)). - Broad trust reporting may burden ordinary people: Bare trust arrangements (e.g., adding a family member to title) face new filing and steep penalties (min $2,500 or 5% of highest asset value), with confusion and compliance costs (Part 1, s. 150(1.2), 163(5)–(6)). - Bank/insurer taxes may be passed through: Institutions could offset costs with higher fees, lower savings rates, or reduced dividends; impact on lending is uncertain (Part VI.2; Part 1, s. 123.6). Assumption risk. - Charity payout increase could strain smaller endowments: A 5% disbursement quota above $1,000,000 may force asset sales in weak markets; the Minister can reduce quotas case‑by‑case, but relief is not automatic (Part 1, s. 149.1). - Phasing out flow‑through shares for oil, gas and coal may reduce exploration/jobs in those sectors; transition support is limited in the bill text (Part 1, s. 66(12.6), (12.62)).

Extra $20.8B Keeps Federal Services Running

## Summary This supply bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $20,796,964,176 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to cover 2022–2023 expenses not already approved in earlier estimates. It implements Supplementary Estimates (B), setting out department-by-department items and conditions. Most items take effect retroactively to April 1, 2022, and some can be spent until March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2). - Total authorized: $20,796,964,176, split between Schedule 1 ($20,385,294,997) and Schedule 2 ($411,669,179) (Schedules 1–2). - Funds may be used only for the stated purposes in each item (Bill — Purpose of each item). - Items are deemed effective April 1, 2022; Schedule 2 items can be paid through March 31, 2024, with unspent balances then lapsing (Bill — Effective date; Order of payment; Schedule 2). - Adjustments to the accounts are allowed after year-end for items in Schedules 1–2, without further cash payments (Bill — Adjustments in accounts). - Transfers listed in the Estimates are deemed authorized as of April 1, 2022 (Bill — Transfers of appropriations). ## What it means for you - Households - Core federal services continue. This bill keeps departments funded through March 31, 2023, avoiding service interruptions (Authorization clause; Schedules 1–2). - Public health programs are supported by $1,362,767,516 for the Public Health Agency of Canada and $170,395,528 for Health Canada (Schedule 1). - Housing programs administered by CMHC receive $694,622,759 in reimbursements for loan forgiveness and related costs under the National Housing Act (Schedule 1). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Significant funding authority to Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($6,295,072,424) and Indigenous Services Canada ($2,220,494,576) for operating costs and contributions, including capital at ISC (Schedule 1). - Newcomers and refugees - Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is authorized $1,181,595,286 for operations, capital, and contributions “including the provision of goods and services” (Schedule 1). - Travelers and border users - Canada Border Services Agency receives $217,846,786 (operating and capital) that can be charged to 2022–2023 or 2023–2024, payable through March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2; Order of payment). - Businesses and nonprofits - Regional development agencies (e.g., Western Economic Diversification $106,130,786; Quebec $126,642,591; Pacific $85,535,883; Atlantic $20,000,000) receive contribution authority (Schedule 1). - Global Affairs Canada is authorized $1,210,664,263 for trade promotion, international assistance, and related contributions (Schedule 1). - Public servants and pension/benefit plan members - Treasury Board Secretariat central votes cover compensation adjustments ($385,380,126), public service insurance and benefits ($536,506,604), and operating budget carry-forward ($415,000,000) (Schedule 1). - Local and provincial governments - Several votes allow contributions to provinces and municipalities for projects (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans capital contributions; Environment capital; Parks Canada contributions) (Schedule 1 — DFO 5b; Environment 5b; Parks Canada 1b). - Arts, culture, and media users - Funding authority for CBC ($21,000,000), Canada Council ($9,200,000), Telefilm ($9,200,000), museums, and galleries supports ongoing operations (Schedule 1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $20,796,964,176 (FY2022–2023). - Key totals from the bill: - Schedule 1 total: $20,385,294,997 (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 total: $411,669,179 (Schedule 2). - Combined: $20,796,964,176 (Summary; Authorization clause). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs | $6,295,072,424 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Indigenous Services Canada | $2,220,494,576 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness | $1,664,337,939 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (central votes and operations) | $1,374,308,887 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Public Health Agency of Canada | $1,362,767,516 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development | $1,210,664,263 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada | $1,181,595,286 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | $694,622,759 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Fisheries and Oceans | $437,295,115 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Employment and Social Development | $402,841,884 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Royal Canadian Mounted Police | $314,042,840 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Natural Resources | $304,392,462 | One-time (FY2022–2023) | Schedule 1 Canada Border Services Agency | $217,846,786 | Payable to Mar 31, 2024 | Schedule 2 Canada Revenue Agency | $193,822,393 | Payable to Mar 31, 2024 | Schedule 2 - Other notable items: - Transport Canada $151,570,682; Health Canada $170,395,528; Agriculture and Agri‑Food $149,214,887; Public Services and Procurement $192,728,830 (Schedule 1). - Departments and agencies often have authority to spend revenues they collect to offset related expenditures (multiple votes in Schedule 1). ## Proponents' View - Ensures continuity of government services by providing $20,796,964,176 in additional 2022–2023 authority based on Supplementary Estimates (B) (Summary; Schedules 1–2). - Targets priority areas with large, specified allocations, including Indigenous services and settlements ($8.52 billion combined for CIRNAC and ISC), public health ($1.36 billion to PHAC), and public safety ($1.66 billion) (Schedule 1). - Supports immigration processing and newcomer services through IRCC operating, capital, and contribution authority totaling $1.18 billion (Schedule 1). - Provides central funding for negotiated pay and benefits ($385.38 million compensation adjustments; $536.51 million public service insurance) to avoid ad hoc pressures on departments (Schedule 1 — TBS 15b, 20b). - Allows timely response to late‑year needs by deeming items effective April 1, 2022 and permitting certain payments to be made up to March 31, 2024 (Bill — Effective date; Order of payment; Schedule 2). ## Opponents' View - Oversight limits: A single omnibus appropriation makes it hard to scrutinize program‑level impacts despite precise totals (Schedules 1–2). Many items are broad (e.g., “the grants listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year”). - Retroactive effect reduces in‑year parliamentary control, since items are deemed effective April 1, 2022 even if passed later (Bill — Effective date). - Carry‑forward risk: Schedule 2 funds can be paid until March 31, 2024, and lapsing rules may blur year‑end accountability (Bill — Order of payment; Schedule 2). - Large central votes concentrate spending authority at Treasury Board Secretariat ($1.37 billion total, including $415 million operating budget carry‑forward), which may weaken line‑department transparency (Schedule 1 — TBS 25b). - Future‑year commitments: National Defence is authorized total commitments of $52,571,272,691, with $28,418,149,125 due in future years, raising concerns about long‑term liabilities beyond the fiscal year (Schedule 1 — DND 1b). - Widespread authority to “expend revenues received” across departments can reduce visibility on gross spending and service cost recovery (multiple votes in Schedule 1).

Canada Criminalizes Organ Trafficking, Bars Offenders

## Summary This bill creates new crimes for trafficking in human organs and changes immigration rules to bar people involved in organ trafficking from entering or staying in Canada. It applies to acts done in Canada and to certain acts done abroad by Canadian citizens and permanent residents. It also sets a maximum prison term of 14 years for these crimes. - Makes it a crime to remove, help remove, or receive an organ for transplant if informed consent was not given, or if the person is reckless about whether consent was given (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)). - Makes it a crime to obtain or help obtain an organ for transplant if it was provided for consideration (payment or other benefit), or if the person is reckless about that (Criminal Code s.240.1(2)). - Sets a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s.240.1(3)). - Applies to acts done outside Canada by citizens and permanent residents; such acts are deemed committed in Canada for prosecution (Criminal Code s.7(4.2)). - Requires the Attorney General’s consent before prosecutors can proceed under the extraterritorial rule (Criminal Code s.7(4.3)). - Makes a foreign national or permanent resident inadmissible (not allowed to enter or remain) if the Minister finds they engaged in conduct that would be an organ‑trafficking offence in Canada (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). ## What it means for you - Households and patients - Receiving a transplant organ that was removed without informed consent, or for consideration, can lead to criminal charges, even if the surgery happened abroad (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)–(2); s.7(4.2)). Effective on coming into force (date not stated in text provided). - People who arrange or facilitate a transplant involving a non‑consensual organ may face charges, including those who act on behalf of, at the direction of, or with the person who removed the organ (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)(c)). - Health workers and facilitators - Doctors, hospital staff, brokers, and coordinators who participate in or facilitate a removal without informed consent face criminal liability, with a maximum of 14 years in prison (Criminal Code s.240.1(1), (3)). - Anyone who participates in obtaining an organ for consideration (payment or benefit) for transplant faces criminal liability (Criminal Code s.240.1(2)). - Canadians abroad - Canadian citizens and permanent residents can be prosecuted in Canada for qualifying acts done outside Canada, with the Attorney General’s consent (Criminal Code s.7(4.2)–(4.3)). - Immigrants, visitors, and permanent residents - A foreign national can be found inadmissible to Canada if the Minister is of the opinion they engaged in conduct that would be an offence under the new Criminal Code section (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). - A permanent resident may also be found inadmissible on the same ground, which can affect their status (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). - “Inadmissible” means not allowed to enter or remain in Canada; this can lead to refusal of entry, removal, or denial of status changes. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations or new fees in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Potential costs for investigations, prosecutions, and corrections related to new Criminal Code offences. Data unavailable. - Potential costs for screening, intelligence, and case processing at IRCC and CBSA due to the new inadmissibility ground (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). Data unavailable. - Proceedings for extraterritorial cases require Attorney General consent (Criminal Code s.7(4.3)). Fiscal impact: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Creates a clear national ban on organ trafficking with strong penalties, which they argue will deter “transplant tourism” and related abuse (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)–(3)). Assumes deterrence effect. - Covers people who knowingly benefit or are reckless about consent or payment, closing perceived loopholes for recipients and facilitators (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)(a)–(c), s.240.1(2)). - Extends Canadian jurisdiction to citizens and permanent residents abroad, allowing Canada to act even when offences occur outside the country (Criminal Code s.7(4.2)). - Adds an immigration bar so that those involved in organ trafficking cannot enter or remain in Canada, which proponents say helps prevent Canada from being a safe haven (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). - Requires Attorney General consent for extraterritorial prosecutions, which proponents say ensures careful case selection and oversight (Criminal Code s.7(4.3)). Assumes this improves consistency. ## Opponents' View - Enforcement abroad may be difficult; proving lack of informed consent or that consideration was paid in a foreign setting can be hard, raising risk of weak or uneven enforcement (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)–(2)). Assumes limited access to foreign evidence. - The “reckless” standard could expose recipients or facilitators to prosecution even when documentation is incomplete, potentially discouraging legitimate transplants where proof is unclear (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)–(2)). Assumes documentation gaps. - The immigration bar relies on the Minister’s “opinion,” which critics may view as a low threshold that could lead to inadmissibility decisions without criminal convictions (IRPA s.35(1)(c.1)). Assumes due process concerns. - Health providers may face uncertainty about what verification is needed to avoid liability, which could lead to defensive practices or reduced willingness to assist patients with transplant needs (Criminal Code s.240.1(1)). Assumes compliance burdens. - Investigations, prosecutions, and detention could add costs without clear data on prevalence, making cost‑effectiveness uncertain. Data unavailable.

National Plan for Crypto Sector Growth

## Summary This bill orders the Minister of Finance to create a national framework to support the growth of the cryptoasset sector. It sets consultation rules, timelines, and reporting duties, but it does not change taxes, securities rules, or consumer protections. “Cryptoassets” are defined as digital assets secured by cryptography (like blockchain) that do not rely on a central authority (Interpretation). - Requires a framework that lowers barriers to entry, protects people working in the sector, and minimizes red tape (National Framework on Cryptoassets (1)-(2)). - Sets formal consultations with experts named by provinces and territories, plus public input (Consultations (1), (3)). - Bars recent lobbyists and federal public-sector employees from the designated expert group (Consultations (1)(b)-(c)). - Publishes designated experts’ submissions within 1 year of the Act coming into force (Consultations (4)). - Tables a draft framework in Parliament within 18 months after those submissions are published, then invites 3 months of public comment (Draft framework (1), (3)). - Tables the final framework within 3 years of the Act coming into force and publishes it within 10 days (Reporting Requirements (1)-(2)). - Provinces are not required to implement anything outside federal jurisdiction (Implementation Clarification). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate change to taxes, banking, or consumer protections. The bill creates a plan and consultation process, not new rules (entire Act). - You can submit written comments during two windows: initial public submissions, and comments on the draft framework for 3 months after notice (Consultations (3); Draft framework (3)). - Workers in the crypto sector - The framework must consider protections for people working in the sector (National Framework on Cryptoassets (2)). - Provinces and territories may nominate people with experience in the sector to give written submissions within 3 months of the Act coming into force (Consultations (1)-(2)). - To be a designated expert, you must not have been required to file a lobbying return under the Lobbying Act in the past 5 years and must not be a federal public servant or Crown corporation employee (Consultations (1)(b)-(c)). - Businesses (crypto firms, startups, service providers) - No direct regulatory changes now. The goal is to reduce barriers to entry and administrative burden in the future framework (National Framework on Cryptoassets (2)). - You can submit written input as part of the public process and on the draft framework (Consultations (3); Draft framework (3)). - Provinces and territories - You can designate experienced sector participants to submit written views; their submissions will be published within 1 year of the Act coming into force (Consultations (1), (4)). - You are not required to adopt any measures that fall under provincial jurisdiction (Implementation Clarification). - Timeline (after the Act comes into force) - Within 3 months: Minister invites written submissions from designated experts (Consultations (2)). - Within 1 year: Department of Finance publishes designated experts’ submissions (Consultations (4)). - Within 18 months after that publication: Minister tables a draft framework in both Houses; finance committees receive it; 3-month public comment window opens (Draft framework (1)-(3)). - Within 3 years: Minister tables the final framework; publishes it within 10 days (Reporting Requirements (1)-(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct spending or appropriations are in the bill (entire Act). - The Department of Finance will incur administrative costs to run consultations, publish submissions, draft reports, and manage public comments. Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - A clear federal framework can reduce uncertainty, which may lower barriers to entry and administrative burden for firms (National Framework on Cryptoassets (2)). - The consultation rules promote independence by excluding recent lobbyists and current federal employees from the designated expert group (Consultations (1)(b)-(c)). - Transparency is built in: designated experts’ submissions, the draft framework, public comment notice, and the final framework must be published (Consultations (4); Draft framework (3); Reporting Requirements (2)). - The process gives Parliament oversight through tabling and committee referral, which can improve quality and accountability (Draft framework (1)-(2); Reporting Requirements (1)). - Provincial input is formalized while respecting jurisdiction, since provinces are not compelled to implement measures outside federal powers (Consultations (1); Implementation Clarification). ## Opponents' View - The Act creates process but no immediate regulatory clarity or consumer protections, which may delay action for up to 3 years after coming into force (Reporting Requirements (1)). - The definition of “cryptoassets” excludes assets that rely on a central authority, which may leave out parts of the digital asset market and narrow the framework’s scope (Interpretation). - Excluding recent lobbyists could reduce conflicts of interest but may also limit input from some knowledgeable industry participants (Consultations (1)(b)). - Administrative work will require staff time and resources at the Department of Finance; the bill provides no funding or cost estimate, creating budget uncertainty. Data unavailable. - Provinces are not required to act, so the framework could have uneven uptake across Canada, reducing effectiveness (Implementation Clarification).

Cuts Mandatory Minimums, Adds Health-Based Drug Diversion

## Summary Bill C-5 changes parts of the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It removes several mandatory minimum penalties, lets judges use more conditional sentences (serving time in the community), and directs police and prosecutors to use health‑focused diversion for simple drug possession. It also creates rules to keep simple possession conviction records separate and, after a period, treated as if they never happened. - Removes mandatory minimum penalties for several firearm and drug offences; maximum sentences stay in place (e.g., up to 14 years or life) (Criminal Code ss. 85, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 103, 244, 244.2, 344, 346; CDSA ss. 5, 6, 7). - Expands eligibility for conditional sentences; judges still cannot use them for attempt to murder, torture, or advocating genocide (Criminal Code s.742.1). - Requires police to consider warnings or referrals to health and social services for simple possession; prosecutors may proceed only if diversion is not appropriate (CDSA Part I.1, ss.10.1–10.3). - Simple possession conviction records must be kept “separate and apart”; after two years, people are deemed never convicted of that offence (CDSA s.10.6). - Allows service providers (e.g., social workers, medical staff) to handle controlled substances found in their work for disposal without being charged (CDSA s.10.7). - Mandates a parliamentary review four years after the Act takes effect (Review clause). ## What it means for you - Households - If you or a family member face simple possession charges, police must consider a warning or referral to services instead of charges; prosecutors should only prosecute if diversion is not appropriate (CDSA ss.10.2–10.3). - Past and future simple possession convictions will be kept separate; after two years, a person is deemed never convicted of that offence, which may reduce collateral impacts of a record (CDSA s.10.6). - People who use drugs - You may be warned or referred to community programs instead of being charged for simple possession, with your consent for referrals (CDSA s.10.2). - Evidence that you received a warning or referral cannot be used in court to show prior offending behavior (CDSA s.10.5). - Workers (service providers) - Social workers, medical professionals, and similar providers are not guilty of simple possession if they come into possession of drugs in their duties and intend to lawfully dispose of them within a reasonable time (CDSA s.10.7). - Defendants in firearm or drug cases - Judges are no longer bound by certain mandatory minimum penalties; they can set sentences anywhere up to the existing maximums (e.g., up to 10, 14, or life, depending on the offence) (Criminal Code ss. 85, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 103, 244, 244.2; CDSA ss. 5–7). - More people will be eligible for conditional sentences served in the community under strict conditions, though not for attempt to murder, torture, or advocating genocide (Criminal Code s.742.1). - Police and prosecutors - Police must consider taking no action, warning, or referring individuals for simple possession before laying charges and must keep a record of warnings or referrals (CDSA ss.10.2, 10.4). - Prosecutors should only proceed with simple possession charges if diversion is not suitable, based on the Act’s health‑based principles (CDSA ss.10.1, 10.3). - Courts and researchers - Courts, police, and certain government officials can access records of warnings/referrals for case administration; researchers can access de‑identified information to assess alternative measures (CDSA s.10.4). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill includes no direct appropriations or fees. - Possible impacts on costs or savings (e.g., incarceration vs. community supervision, diversion program capacity) are not quantified in the bill or an official fiscal note. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Judicial discretion improves fairness by allowing sentences that fit the offence and the person, rather than fixed minimums (Criminal Code penalty changes; CDSA ss.5–7). - Conditional sentences let suitable offenders serve time under strict conditions in the community, which proponents say can support rehabilitation while keeping maximum penalties for serious crimes (Criminal Code s.742.1). Data unavailable on outcomes. - Diversion for simple possession follows health‑based principles set in the Act and aims to reduce harm and stigma from criminal sanctions (CDSA s.10.1). - Records for simple possession being kept separate and later deemed not convictions can reduce long‑term barriers tied to criminal records, such as employment or housing screenings (CDSA s.10.6). Data unavailable on scale. - Serious offences still carry high maximums (e.g., up to 14 years for several firearm offences and life for certain drug offences), so courts can impose strong penalties when needed (Criminal Code ss. 85, 244, 244.2; CDSA ss.5–7). ## Opponents' View - Removing mandatory minimums may lead to lighter sentences for gun and drug crimes and reduce deterrence, depending on judicial decisions (Criminal Code ss. 85, 95, 244, 244.2; CDSA ss.5–7). Data unavailable on deterrent effects. - Expanding conditional sentences could place higher‑risk individuals back in the community, raising supervision and enforcement demands on probation services (Criminal Code s.742.1). Data unavailable on capacity. - Diversion relies on police and prosecutor judgment; application may vary by region, creating uneven outcomes (CDSA ss.10.2–10.3). - Keeping warning/referral records while deeming some convictions to have “never” occurred may create confusion about what information is accessible to whom, and when (CDSA ss.10.4–10.6). - The Act encourages referrals to health and social services but does not fund them, which may strain existing programs if referrals increase (CDSA s.10.1). Data unavailable on program capacity.

Kids' dental benefit and renter payment

## Summary The bill creates two temporary benefits to help with living costs. One supports dental care for children under 12. The other gives a one-time payment to low‑income renters who paid rent in 2022. It also adds enforcement, privacy, and tax rules to run these programs. - Interim Canada Dental Benefit for children under 12 without dental insurance; payments scale by family income (Dental Benefit Act, Amount of benefit (1)). - One-time $500 renter payment for people with low 2021 income whose 2022 rent was at least 30% of their 2021 income (Rental Housing Benefit Act, Eligibility (1)(e)-(g)). - Applications require an attestation and contact details for a dentist or landlord; receipts may be requested (Dental Benefit Act, Application; Provision of information; Rental Housing Benefit Act, Application; Provision of information). - Overpayments can be recovered; penalties up to 50% of the benefit; offences carry fines and possible jail time (Violations; Offences in both Acts). - Dental benefits are non-taxable under the Income Tax Act (Part 3, ITA s.81(1)(t)); the bill text does not specify tax treatment for the renter benefit. ## What it means for you - Households (children under 12) - Cash for dental care if your adjusted family income is under $90,000 and the child has no access to dental insurance through any person’s job (Dental Benefit Act, Eligibility (1)(c),(e)). - Amount per child per period: CAD $650 if income < $70,000; $390 if $70,000–$79,999; $260 if $80,000–$89,999 (Amount of benefit (1)). - Shared custody: payment is 50% of the above amounts (Amount of benefit (2)). - Timing: apply December 1, 2022–June 30, 2023 for services in October 1, 2022–June 30, 2023; apply July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024 for services in July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024 (Applications — first/second period). - Extra help: you may apply once more if the child’s dental costs for a period exceed $650 and you meet conditions in the Act (Application — additional dental benefit). - Max per child: no more than two dental benefits (or four half‑benefits for shared custody) (Amount of benefit (5)). - You must list the dental provider’s name and contact, and the month of service; you may be asked for receipts later (Application — form, manner and contents; Provision of information (1)). - Renters - One-time CAD $500 if you are at least 15 on the reference day, lived in Canada in 2022, filed a 2021 tax return (you and your spouse/partner, if any), had 2021 adjusted income ≤ $35,000 (with spouse/partner or a qualifying dependant) or ≤ $20,000 otherwise, and paid 2022 rent for your principal residence in Canada (Eligibility (1)(a)-(f)). - Your 2022 rent must be at least 30% of your 2021 adjusted income (Eligibility (1)(g)). - Application window: from the reference day (the later of December 1, 2022 and coming‑into‑force) to 120 days after that day (Application). - You must attest to rent paid and provide your address and the payee’s contact (Attestation). - If your payment covered room and board with no split listed, only 90% counts as rent for the 30% test (Eligibility (2)). - Rent paid to a related person that is not reported as income by that person does not count (Definition of rent (d)). - Couples: only one cohabiting spouse/partner can receive the payment; if you lived apart in 2022, rules specify whose rent counts (Eligibility (3),(4),(7)). - People with dental insurance - Not eligible for the dental benefit if the child was insured or had access to a workplace dental plan on the relevant dates (Eligibility (1)(d)-(e)). - All applicants (program integrity and protections) - Benefits cannot be assigned, seized, or garnished; they are protected from bankruptcy proceedings (Benefit cannot be charged, etc., in both Acts). - The Minister may ask for information or documents; failure can make you ineligible (Provision of information and documents; Ineligibility). - If you were overpaid, you must repay; the government can recover debts, but no interest applies on overpayments (Return of overpayment; No interest payable). - False statements can lead to penalties up to 50% of the benefit (max $5,000 for dental) and offences with fines and possible imprisonment up to two years less a day (Violations; Offences). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Per‑recipient amounts set in the bill: - Dental: CAD $650/$390/$260 per child per period based on income; 50% for shared custody (Dental Benefit Act, Amount of benefit (1)-(2)). - Renter: CAD $500 one‑time payment (Rental Housing Benefit Act, Payment of benefit). - Funding mechanism: - All payments come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; CRA/CMHC may administer (Dental Benefit Act, Payment out of CRF; Rental Housing Benefit Act, Payment out of CRF; Corporation; Minister of National Revenue). - Tax treatment: - Dental benefit is non‑taxable (Part 3, Income Tax Act s.81(1)(t)). - Rental benefit tax treatment not specified in the bill text provided. Data unavailable. - Appropriations or multi‑year totals: - The bill authorizes payments but does not state total appropriations or projected uptake. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Targets children who lack dental insurance and families under $90,000, reducing cost barriers to needed care now while a longer‑term program is developed (Preamble; Eligibility (1)(c),(e)). - Scaled dental amounts ($260–$650) focus more help on lower‑income families (Amount of benefit (1)). - Renter payment targets those with high rent burden by using a 30%‑of‑income test and low 2021 income limits (Eligibility (1)(e)-(g)). - Simple, application‑based delivery can move money quickly using CRA/CMHC systems; attestation plus receipts on request balance speed and integrity (Application; Provision of information). - Benefits are protected from seizure and bankruptcy, ensuring households keep the support (Benefit cannot be charged, etc.). - Clear penalties and offences deter fraud while allowing up to three years to impose administrative penalties and five years to prosecute offences (Violations; Limitation of penalties; Offences). ## Opponents' View - Many families with insurance but high out‑of‑pocket costs are excluded from the dental benefit, regardless of need (Eligibility (1)(d)-(e)). - Renter payment hinges on filing a 2021 return within 120 days, which may exclude newcomers, low‑income people who did not file, or those with complex tax situations (Eligibility (1)(d); Application). - Using 2021 income to test a 2022 rent burden may miss current hardship or income shocks; the 30% rule can exclude near‑threshold households (Eligibility (1)(g)). - One‑time renter payment is not ongoing and only covers 2022 rent; the application window is short (120 days) (Payment of benefit; Application). - Administrative demands on applicants (dentist/landlord contact info, employer info for dental applications) may be hard for people in informal settings or with limited documentation (Application — form, manner and contents; Rental Attestation). - Overpayment recovery, 72‑month reconsideration for suspected false statements, and penalties up to 50% create uncertainty and potential hardship if mistakes occur (Reconsideration (5); Violations (3); Return of overpayment).

Châteauguay—Lacolle Riding Renamed in Quebec

## Summary This bill changes the official name of the federal electoral district “Châteauguay—Lacolle” to “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville.” It amends the 2013 representation order for Quebec by substituting the district name. The change takes effect 6 months after Royal Assent, unless the Chief Electoral Officer finishes preparations sooner and publishes a notice in the Canada Gazette, in which case it takes effect on that publication date (Bill, Coming into Force clause). - Changes only the district’s name; no boundary or representation changes (Bill, Name change clause). - Applies to the Quebec district currently named “Châteauguay—Lacolle” (Bill, Name change clause). - Effective 6 months after Royal Assent, or earlier if the Chief Electoral Officer publishes readiness in the Canada Gazette (Bill, Coming into Force clause). - Elections Canada will use the new name on official materials once in force (Bill, Coming into Force clause). ## What it means for you - Households (voters in the district): - The district will be called “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville” on federal election materials after the in-force date (Bill, Name change clause; Coming into Force clause). - Your voting boundaries, polling location, and current Member of Parliament do not change because this bill only changes the name (Bill, Name change clause). - Timing: 6 months after Royal Assent, or earlier if a Canada Gazette notice is published by the Chief Electoral Officer (Bill, Coming into Force clause). - Candidates and political parties: - Must use the new district name for registration, campaigning, and filings after the in-force date (Bill, Name change clause; Coming into Force clause). - No changes to district boundaries or electorate from this bill (Bill, Name change clause). - Elections Canada and federal agencies: - Update the district name in the representation order and on maps, voter information, and other official references after the in-force date (Bill, Name change clause; Coming into Force clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriation or new spending authority in the bill text (Bill, Name change clause; Coming into Force clause). - No fees, taxes, or revenues created or changed by the bill (Bill text). - Administrative costs to implement the name change are not stated. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View No publicly available information. ## Opponents' View No publicly available information.

Jury Secrecy Eases for Mental Health Care

## Summary This bill changes Canada’s Criminal Code rule on jury secrecy. It keeps the ban on sharing what happened during jury deliberations but makes limited exceptions. The main new exception lets jurors talk to licensed health care professionals after the trial for treatment tied to their jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). The bill takes effect 90 days after it receives Royal Assent. - Lets jurors and certain support persons speak with licensed health care professionals about jury deliberations after the trial for treatment, therapy, or counselling (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). - Keeps all other disclosures of jury deliberations a summary conviction offence (Bill s. 649(1)). - Confirms disclosures are also allowed for investigating or testifying about an alleged offence under Criminal Code s. 139(2) related to a juror (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)). - Applies to people who provided technical, personal, interpretative, or other support services to a juror with a physical disability (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)). - Effective 90 days after Royal Assent. ## What it means for you - Households - Jurors may discuss confidential jury-room matters with a licensed doctor, psychologist, therapist, or counsellor after the trial if it is for treatment of health issues from jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). This does not allow sharing with family, friends, media, or on social media. - Jurors still cannot disclose deliberations during the trial or for non-treatment reasons. Unauthorized disclosure remains an offence punishable on summary conviction (Bill s. 649(1)). - Workers - Health care professionals licensed under provincial law may receive disclosures from jurors for treatment, therapy, or counselling after the trial, limited to health issues arising from jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). The bill does not create new reporting duties or programs. - People who provided support services to a juror with a physical disability may also seek treatment and disclose to licensed health care professionals under the same limits (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)). - Businesses - No direct changes. Health clinics may see demand from jurors seeking post-trial counselling. Data unavailable. - Courts and justice system - Jury instructions and post-trial materials may need updates to explain the health-care exception and its limits. Data unavailable. - Disclosures are also permitted when investigating or giving evidence about alleged offences under Criminal Code s. 139(2) related to a juror (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)). - Service users - Access to counselling about jury service is clearer. Discussions must be with a licensed health care professional and tied to treatment after the trial (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations, new agencies, or mandated programs appear in the bill text (Bill s. 649; Coming-into-Force). - Federal implementation costs (e.g., updating forms, guidance): Data unavailable. - Provincial/territorial health system impacts (e.g., counselling demand): Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves access to mental health care for jurors by removing the legal barrier to discussing deliberations with licensed providers after the trial (Bill s. 649(2)(c), s. 649(3)). - Keeps core jury secrecy intact because the exception is narrow: only after trial, only to licensed health care professionals, and only for treatment related to jury service (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). - Protects trials from interference by limiting other disclosures and retaining penalties for unauthorized sharing (Bill s. 649(1)). - Recognizes and supports people who provided disability-related support to jurors, giving them the same path to care (Bill s. 649(1), s. 649(2)(c)). - Maintains exceptions for investigations and testimony about alleged offences under Criminal Code s. 139(2), aiding enforcement without broadening access to deliberation details (Bill s. 649(2)(a)-(b)). ## Opponents' View - Risk that the health-care exception could weaken the tradition of strict jury secrecy if disclosures expand beyond treatment purposes; the bill does not set verification mechanisms for treatment intent (Bill s. 649(2)(c)). - Possible uncertainty for jurors and providers about what is “related to” jury service and what is allowed to be shared, which may require guidance and training. Data unavailable. - Health care professionals may receive sensitive information from jurors; while privacy laws apply, the bill does not address secondary disclosures or record-keeping, which could raise confidentiality concerns (Bill s. 649(3)). - Enforcement remains complaint-driven; the bill does not change penalties or create new oversight, which could make improper disclosures hard to detect (Bill s. 649(1)).

One-Time GST Credit Top-Up

## Summary This bill temporarily increases the federal GST/HST credit for lower- and modest‑income Canadians. It adds a one‑time top‑up equal to 50% of a person’s annual GST/HST credit for the 2022-2023 benefit year, paid using 2021 tax return data (Bill Summary; Bill s. 122.5(4.2)). The government stated this is to give quick cost‑of‑living relief through the existing system. - Doubles the GST/HST credit for six months by adding a lump‑sum top‑up equal to half of the annual credit (Bill Summary). - Uses 2021 income to calculate eligibility and amount; no application needed if you filed your 2021 return (Bill s. 122.5(4.2)). - Phases out the benefit at 15% of income over $39,826 (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(B)). - Shared‑custody parents split the top‑up according to set rules (Bill s. 122.5(3.03)). - Government cost estimated at about CAD $2.5 billion, reaching about 11 million recipients (Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022; PBO, October 2022). ## What it means for you - Households - If you already receive the GST/HST credit, you get an extra payment equal to 50% of your annual GST/HST credit for 2022-2023. This is on top of regular quarterly payments (Bill Summary; Bill s. 122.5(3.002)). - The amount depends on family status and income. The top‑up mirrors the same formula used for the GST/HST credit, including amounts for a spouse/partner and each child (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(a)-(f)). - The credit begins to phase out when family net income exceeds $39,826, at a rate of 15% of income above that level (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(B)). - You do not need to apply. Filing a 2021 tax return is required for payment. Late filers will receive it after they file (Bill s. 122.5(3.002), (4.2)). - Payment was delivered as a lump sum through the GST/HST credit system before the end of 2022 (Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022). - Parents and caregivers - If you have children who qualify for the GST/HST credit, your top‑up is larger because it includes the dependent amounts used in the regular credit formula (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(d)). - In shared custody, the one‑time top‑up is split between eligible parents under the shared‑custody rule (Bill s. 122.5(3.03)). - Seniors - Seniors who receive the GST/HST credit get the same 50% top‑up based on their 2021 income and family status (Bill s. 122.5(3.002), (4.2)). - Workers and students - Low- and modest‑income workers and students who qualify for the GST/HST credit receive the one‑time top‑up. Those whose 2021 income was too high will not (Bill s. 122.5(3.002), (4.2)). - Businesses - No direct effect on businesses. This bill only changes a personal tax credit (Bill Summary). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $2.5 billion (FY2022-2023). - Government estimate: About $2.5 billion in one‑time cost, reaching about 11 million individuals and families (Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022). - Independent estimate: Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated a similar one‑time fiscal cost in 2022-2023 (PBO, October 2022). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---|---|--- GST/HST credit top‑up (50% of annual credit) | CAD $2.5 billion | One‑time (2022-2023) | Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022; PBO, October 2022 ## Proponents' View - Targets relief to lower- and modest‑income Canadians by using the existing GST/HST credit system, which already screens by income and family size (Bill s. 122.5(3.002); Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022). - Quick delivery using CRA systems, with payments issued before the end of 2022 and no need to apply (Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022). - Temporary design (a single top‑up equal to six months’ worth) provides near‑term help without creating a permanent program change (Bill Summary). - Scales with need: larger families receive larger amounts because dependants count in the formula (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(d)). - Clear phase‑out: benefit declines by 15% of income above $39,826, focusing dollars on lower‑income households (Bill s. 122.5(3.002)(B)). ## Opponents' View - Uses 2021 income to determine 2022-2023 payments, which may miss households whose income fell in 2022 and may pay households whose income rose (Bill s. 122.5(4.2)). - One‑time payment provides only short‑term relief; there is no ongoing support beyond the 2022-2023 benefit year (Bill Summary). - Fiscal cost of about $2.5 billion adds to the deficit in 2022-2023 (Department of Finance Backgrounder, September 2022; PBO, October 2022). - Complex formula and shared‑custody rules can be hard for the public to understand, making it difficult to predict exact amounts without CRA calculations (Bill s. 122.5(3.002), (3.03)). - Requires a filed 2021 tax return to receive the payment, which delays or prevents payment to eligible non‑filers until they file (Bill s. 122.5(3.002), (4.2)).

Ban coercing or firing over assisted dying refusal

## Summary This bill amends the Criminal Code to create two new offences related to medical assistance in dying (MAID). It aims to protect the freedom of conscience of health care workers by making it a crime to intimidate or coerce them to take part in MAID, directly or indirectly, and to make it a crime to fire or refuse to hire them only because they refuse to take part in MAID (Preamble; Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). It does not change who can receive MAID or how MAID is provided. - Creates a criminal offence for using coercion or any form of intimidation to compel a health care worker to take part in MAID, directly or indirectly (Bill cl. 2(1)). - Creates a criminal offence for dismissing or refusing to employ a health care worker only because they refuse to take part in MAID, directly or indirectly (Bill cl. 2(2)). - Applies to medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other health care professionals (Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). - Offences are punishable on summary conviction (a less serious criminal offence category) (Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). - Comes into force on Royal Assent; no implementation date is specified in the bill text. ## What it means for you - Households and patients - No change to who qualifies for MAID or the legal status of MAID. The bill targets intimidation and employment practices, not patient eligibility (Bill cl. 2). - Access pathways may vary by province or institution if policies change in response to the new offences. The bill itself does not set patient referral or coordination rules. Data unavailable. - Health care professionals (physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, others) - You cannot be criminally coerced or intimidated to take part in MAID, directly or indirectly (which can include activities short of the procedure itself) (Bill cl. 2(1)). - Your employer cannot lawfully fire you or refuse to hire you only because you refuse to take part in MAID, directly or indirectly (Bill cl. 2(2)). - The bill does not define “indirectly.” Practices like “effective referral” may fall within this term, creating legal uncertainty that may require guidance or case law. Data unavailable. - You must still follow all other applicable laws and professional standards. The bill does not provide civil immunity or change licensing rules. - Employers (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, long-term care, private practices) - You risk a criminal charge if you use coercion or intimidation to compel participation in MAID (Bill cl. 2(1)). - You cannot dismiss or refuse to hire someone for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in MAID (Bill cl. 2(2)). You should document legitimate, non-MAID-related reasons for employment decisions. - Review policies, contracts, and training to avoid practices that could be viewed as coercive or as making MAID participation a condition of employment. Data unavailable. - Professional regulators and managers - Rules or directives that effectively compel participation “directly or indirectly” could face challenge or create criminal exposure if enforced through coercive measures (Bill cl. 2(1); Preamble). - Clarify expectations, complaint processes, and non-punitive accommodations for conscience objections. Data unavailable. - Law enforcement and prosecutors - New summary conviction offences may require updates to charging practices and guidance on evidence of “coercion,” “intimidation,” and “indirect” participation (Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). - No new funding or institutions are created by the bill. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no fiscal note; no appropriations; potential minor enforcement costs through existing systems). - No appropriations or transfers are authorized in the bill text. - Creates two new summary conviction offences enforceable by existing police and provincial prosecution services (Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). - Data unavailable on expected case volumes, training needs, or administrative costs. ## Proponents' View - Protects freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Charter by preventing coercion to participate in MAID, including indirect participation (Preamble; Bill cl. 2(1)). - Shields health care workers from job loss or hiring discrimination solely for refusing to take part in MAID (Bill cl. 2(2)). - Establishes clear, uniform national criminal law standards rather than varying workplace practices across provinces (Bill cl. 2). - Targets intimidation and coercion without restricting the legality of MAID for eligible patients (Bill cl. 2). - Addresses concerns that “effective referral” requirements can infringe conscience rights by covering indirect participation (Preamble; Bill cl. 2). ## Opponents' View - May impede timely access to MAID if providers decline to participate or refer, especially in rural or underserviced areas; the bill offers no alternative access mechanism. Data unavailable. - “Indirectly” and “coercion/intimidation” are undefined, creating legal uncertainty and potential conflict with provincial or regulatory policies that require effective referral (Bill cl. 2; Preamble). - Could chill legitimate managerial actions (e.g., scheduling, performance management) if seen as pressure related to MAID participation (Bill cl. 2(1)–(2)). - The “for the reason only” standard may make enforcement difficult; employers may cite multiple reasons, complicating proof and consistency (Bill cl. 2(2)). - Increases enforcement and training burdens on institutions, regulators, and police without dedicated resources. Data unavailable.

Provinces can opt out; Quebec keeps health funds

## Summary This bill changes how provinces can take part in federal programs. It lets any province leave a federal program in a provincial area if the province runs its own program with similar goals. The province would still get the same federal money. It also exempts Quebec from the national rules tied to the Canada Health Transfer, so Quebec would receive the full transfer even if it does not meet those rules. - Allows a province to withdraw from a federal program and still get the same funding if it has “comparable objectives” (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)-(2)). - Exempts Quebec from Canada Health Act compliance rules for receiving the full cash transfer (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - States Quebec must receive the full Canada Health Transfer cash amount in section 5 of the Act (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - Creates an exemption for Quebec from paragraph 24(1)(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (Bill, FPFAA s.24(2)). - Does not set a process for deciding what counts as “comparable objectives” (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). ## What it means for you - Households (Quebec) - No required change to your health coverage on the bill’s passage. The bill does not change Quebec laws or benefits (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - Quebec would keep receiving full federal health funding even if it does not meet national criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act (Bill, CHA s.7(2); CHA ss.8-12). - Patients and health service users (Quebec) - Federal penalties for non-compliance with national health criteria would not apply to Quebec. This removes a federal lever that can reduce cash transfers over extra-billing or user charges (Bill, CHA s.7(2); CHA ss.18-20). - Any change to fees or access would still depend on Quebec’s own laws. The bill itself does not change those laws. - Households and service users (other provinces) - No direct change to your health coverage. Other provinces remain subject to Canada Health Act criteria for full funding (CHA s.7(1)). - For other provincial areas (e.g., child care, housing, training), your province could choose to run its own program with similar goals and still receive federal funds. Services could be designed differently in your province if it withdraws (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - Workers and providers - Program rules may vary more by province where provinces withdraw and run their own comparable programs. Licensing, billing, reporting, or eligibility rules could differ by province (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - Provincial governments - New right to withdraw from a federal program in a provincial area while keeping the same federal contribution, if provincial program objectives are “comparable” (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)-(2)). - Quebec is exempt from Canada Health Act compliance requirements to receive full health funding (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - The bill does not define who decides “comparable objectives,” what evidence is needed, or how disputes are resolved (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - Local governments and community agencies - If a province withdraws and redesigns programs, delivery terms and reporting lines may change. Funding amounts from Ottawa to the province would be unchanged under the bill’s “same contribution” rule (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable; the bill does not appropriate new funds and maintains existing transfer amounts. - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - Federal payments to a withdrawing province must equal what it would have received if it had stayed in the federal program (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)). - Quebec must receive the full Canada Health Transfer cash contribution, regardless of compliance with national criteria (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - Potential fiscal effects could include foregone future deductions for non-compliance in Quebec under the Canada Health Act. Amounts are contingent and not stated. Data unavailable. - Administrative costs to assess “comparable objectives” are not specified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Respects provincial jurisdiction by letting provinces design programs that fit local needs while keeping their share of federal funds (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)-(2)). - Provides stable and predictable health funding to Quebec by removing compliance-based deductions from the Canada Health Act (Bill, CHA s.7(2)). - Does not increase total federal transfers relative to existing formulas; a withdrawing province receives the same contribution it would have received (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1(1)). - Encourages innovation by provinces through alternative program designs with similar objectives, without losing federal dollars (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - Reduces federal micromanagement and conditionality, which proponents say can slow or complicate program delivery (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). ## Opponents' View - Weakens national health standards by guaranteeing Quebec full funding even if it does not meet Canada Health Act criteria tied to public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility (Bill, CHA s.7(2); CHA ss.8-12). - Removes an enforcement tool (cash deductions) that protects patients from extra-billing and user charges in Quebec, reducing federal leverage to uphold patient protections (Bill, CHA s.7(2); CHA ss.18-20). - “Comparable objectives” is undefined. This could trigger disputes or litigation over what qualifies, delay payments, and increase administrative burden (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - Could produce a patchwork of rules across provinces for major programs, creating uneven access and confusion for residents and providers (Bill, FPFAA Part VI.1). - May reduce accountability for federal funds if provinces can opt out of conditions and still receive money, with fewer common reporting requirements. Data unavailable.

Federal Voting Age Lowered to 16

## Summary This bill lowers the federal voting age in Canada from 18 to 16. It updates definitions and related clauses in the Canada Elections Act and sets a delayed start date to give Elections Canada time to prepare. The bill does not change any other voting rules. - Lowers the minimum age to vote to 16 on polling day (amends Canada Elections Act s.3). - Redefines “future elector” as ages 14–15, since 16–17-year-olds would become electors (amends s.2(1)). - Repeals a clause about listing “future electors,” to align with the new age framework (repeals s.22(5)). - Updates age references in enforcement and attestation provisions to match the new voting age (amends s.281.3 and s.549.1(1)(b)). - Takes effect 6 months after Royal Assent, unless the Chief Electoral Officer declares earlier readiness in the Canada Gazette (Coming-into-force clause). ## What it means for you - Households - If you have a 16- or 17-year-old who is a Canadian citizen, they would be able to vote in federal elections held after the effective date (amends s.3; Coming-into-force clause). - 14–15-year-olds may pre-register as “future electors,” as before, but the upper limit for that status would drop to 15 (amends s.2(1)). - 16–17-year-olds (Canadian citizens) - You would be eligible to register and vote in federal elections once the law is in force (amends s.3). - You would likely receive voter information materials and appear on official voters lists provided to parties and candidates, in line with existing list-sharing rules (repeals s.22(5) and aligns with existing list provisions). - Identification rules to vote would not change. You would still need to prove identity and address under the existing Act, or use permitted alternatives such as vouching (no amendments to identification provisions). - If you work on election day, you would have the same right as other electors to three consecutive hours off work to vote, with no loss of pay (Canada Elections Act s.132; unchanged). - Workers and employers - Employers must extend the three-hour voting time rule to 16–17-year-old employees who are electors once the law is in force (Canada Elections Act s.132; unchanged). - Political parties and candidates - You would receive updated lists that include 16–17-year-old electors, subject to existing privacy and use rules for the lists (repeals s.22(5) and conforms with existing list-sharing provisions). - Election administrators - Elections Canada would update the National Register of Electors, forms, training, and communications to reflect the 16+ voting age (global conforming changes; Coming-into-force clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations are included in the bill text. - Administrative costs for Elections Canada (e.g., system updates, outreach, training, materials) are not estimated in the bill or in an official fiscal note. Data unavailable. - Any changes to party/candidate data handling use existing mechanisms; no new funded programs are created. ## Proponents' View - Expands democratic participation by adding 16–17-year-old Canadian citizens to the franchise (amends s.3). - Builds voting habits earlier in life; supporters argue earlier first voting can improve long-term turnout, citing youth engagement research from non-partisan sources (general Elections Canada youth turnout research; not changed by the bill). - Aligns the “future elector” program with actual eligibility, reducing the gap between pre-registration and first voting (amends s.2(1); repeals s.22(5)). - Maintains all existing voting safeguards (ID, list management, offences), with only the age threshold changed (no amendments to identification or other integrity provisions; conforming amendments to s.281.3 and s.549.1). - Provides a 6‑month implementation window, or earlier only if the Chief Electoral Officer confirms readiness, which limits operational risk (Coming-into-force clause). ## Opponents' View - Questions about civic readiness: critics argue many 16–17-year-olds may lack sufficient civic knowledge to make informed choices. Data unavailable. - Administrative burden and cost concerns: adding a new cohort requires updates to registers, training, forms, and outreach; no official cost estimate is provided (Data unavailable). - Identification and address hurdles: some 16–17-year-olds may find proof-of-address requirements harder to meet, which could raise access issues even if they are eligible (no change to ID rules). - Mixed voting ages across levels of government could cause confusion, since most provincial/territorial and municipal voting ages remain at 18. Data unavailable. - Privacy and campaigning near schools: adding minors to electors’ lists may increase campaign outreach to younger voters; opponents may call for clearer guidance on appropriate engagement (repeals s.22(5) and aligns list practices with new age).

Provinces Keep 2019 House Seat Minimum

## Summary This bill changes how seats in the House of Commons are assigned after each 10-year census. It sets a floor so no province can have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament (2019–2021) (s.51(1) Rule 2). It also tells Elections Canada how to redo the 2021 seat calculation and boundary process to apply this change right away (Transitional s.(1)-(7)). - Provinces keep at least their 43rd Parliament seat counts in all future redistributions (s.51(1) Rule 2). - For the 2021 census round, Quebec keeps 78 seats instead of dropping to 77 under the earlier calculation (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021; Transitional s.(1)-(2)). - Total seats in the House increase by 1 compared with the prior 2021 calculation, from 342 to 343; compared with the 43rd Parliament, total seats rise by 5 (338 to 343) (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021; s.51(1) Rule 2). - Boundary commissions must adjust their work where seat numbers changed, with new deadlines starting from the date the revised seat totals are published (Transitional s.(2)(b)-(c)). - Current boundaries and the 2013 Representation Order stay in effect until the new order takes effect under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (EBR Act s.25; Transitional s.(6)). ## What it means for you - Households and voters - Your province will never have fewer MPs than it had in the 43rd Parliament, even if its population grows more slowly in the future (s.51(1) Rule 2). - If you live in Quebec, your province keeps 78 MPs for the next election cycle, rather than 77 as first calculated in 2021 (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021; Transitional s.(1)-(2)). - If you live in Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia, your provinces still gain seats under the 2021 census (Ontario +1 to 122, Alberta +3 to 37, British Columbia +1 to 43) (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021). - Riding boundaries in many provinces will change to reflect the updated seat counts. Changes apply at the first election called at least 7 months after the new representation order is proclaimed (EBR Act s.25; Transitional s.(6)). - Workers and service users - More MPs in some provinces means more constituency offices and staff serving those areas once the new representation order takes effect. Exact locations and staffing are decided by each MP and House rules (EBR Act; House administration policies). Data unavailable on specific offices. - Elections administrators - Where the revised seat count differs from the October 16, 2021 “old calculation,” any reports or steps based on the old number are void, and the commission must redo its report with a new 10‑month clock starting on the Canada Gazette publication date (Transitional s.(2)(a)-(c); EBR Act s.20(1)). - Political parties and candidates - One additional seat nationally compared with the prior 2021 calculation means another nomination and campaign to run once the new order is in force (s.51(1) Rule 2; Transitional s.(1)-(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note was published. The bill does not set specific dollar amounts. - Quantified seat impacts: - Old 2021 calculation: 342 seats total (Ontario 122, Alberta 37, British Columbia 43, Quebec 77; others unchanged) (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021). - With this bill’s floor: 343 seats total (Quebec retained at 78) (s.51(1) Rule 2; Transitional s.(1)-(2)). - Incremental effect of this bill versus the old 2021 calculation: +1 MP nationally. Ongoing costs per MP (salary, office, travel) are set by House rules and appropriations. Data unavailable on total annual amount attributable to one MP in the relevant fiscal years. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Total House seats, 43rd Parliament | 338 | N/A | SI/2013-102 (2013 Representation Order) Total House seats, old 2021 calc. | 342 | At next applicable election | Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021 Total House seats, after C-14 | 343 | At next applicable election | s.51(1) Rule 2; Transitional s.(1)-(2) ## Proponents' View - Protects provincial voice: No province will lose seats in future redistributions, preserving a minimum level of representation even when population grows slowly (s.51(1) Rule 2). - Immediate fairness for Quebec: Reverses the 2021 drop from 78 to 77 seats so Quebec’s representation does not decline between decennial censuses (Transitional s.(1)-(2); Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021). - Limited change to the system: Provinces that were slated to gain seats under the 2021 census still gain them; the bill adds only one extra seat nationally compared with the existing formula (Canada Gazette, October 16, 2021; s.51(1) Rule 2). - Clear process and timeline: Sets out how Elections Canada must recalculate seats and re‑start commission timelines where needed, reducing uncertainty (Transitional s.(1)-(3)). ## Opponents' View - Weaker representation by population: Freezing a provincial seat floor can make seat shares less proportional to population over time, especially if slower‑growing provinces keep their minimums while others grow (s.51(1) Rule 2). - House size creep: Adding a permanent floor increases the chance the total number of MPs will keep rising to accommodate growth elsewhere, raising long‑term costs. No fiscal estimate is provided (Data unavailable). - Administrative disruption: The bill voids certain commission reports and steps where seat numbers changed, forcing rework and potential delays in boundary readjustment (Transitional s.(2)(a)-(c)). - Precedent risk: Changing the allocation rules mid‑cycle may invite future ad hoc adjustments, complicating planning for Elections Canada and parties (Transitional s.(1)-(7)).

Budget Act adds taxes, housing ban, sick leave

## Summary This Budget Implementation Act (C-19, 2022) is a wide package. It changes taxes, benefits, consumer rules, health and transit funding, corporate transparency, sanctions, and more. Several parts take effect in late 2022 and 2023. Key practical changes: - New federal Luxury Tax on cars and aircraft over $100,000 and boats over $250,000, from September 1, 2022 (Part 4). - Two-year ban on home purchases by non‑Canadians, starting January 1, 2023 (Part 5, Div. 12). - New excise duty and stamping rules for vaping products, with penalties, from October 1, 2022 (Part 3, Div. 1). - Up to $2.75 billion in one‑time payments for health care and transit/housing (Part 5, Div. 4 and Div. 6). - 10 days paid medical leave for most federally regulated workers (Part 5, Div. 29). - Stronger Competition Act rules (wage‑fixing made criminal, higher fines, “drip pricing” banned) (Part 5, Div. 15). ## What it means for you - Households - Luxury Tax on new purchases: 10% of total price or 20% of the amount above the threshold (whichever is less) for certain vehicles, aircraft, and boats (Part 4). Applies to sales and imports on or after September 1, 2022. - Quarterly Climate Action Incentive (carbon rebate) replaces the prior annual credit, with rules for who gets paid each quarter (Income Tax Act s.122.8 as amended; payments after June 2022) (Part 1). - Disability Tax Credit broadened (includes deemed eligibility for type 1 diabetes; expands “mental functions” criteria) (Income Tax Act s.118.3, s.118.4) (Part 1). - Home Accessibility Tax Credit limit doubled to $20,000 in eligible expenses (Income Tax Act s.118.041) (Part 1). - Copyright term extended to 70 years after the author’s death (Part 5, Div. 16). - Renters and homebuyers - Assignment sales of new housing are subject to GST/HST on the assignment amount (Part 2). - Non‑Canadians cannot buy residential property for two years from January 1, 2023, with some exceptions (students, refugees, spouses). Penalty up to $10,000; courts may order sale (Part 5, Div. 12). - Workers - Paid medical leave: employees in federally regulated workplaces earn up to 10 paid days per year (earn 3 days after 30 days, then 1 per month; cap 10). Large employers first, then others by regulation, no later than December 1, 2022 (Part 5, Div. 29). - Labour Mobility Deduction for certain tradespeople: claim up to $4,000 for temporary relocation expenses, 2022 onward (Income Tax Act s.8(1)(t)) (Part 1). - Postdoctoral fellowship income now counts as “earned income” for RRSP room (Income Tax Act s.146(1)) (Part 1). - Competition Act now criminalizes wage‑fixing and “no‑poach” agreements between unaffiliated employers (max 14 years imprisonment and/or fine) (Part 5, Div. 15). - Small businesses and charities - Zero‑emission technology manufacturing tax credit rate up to 7.5% (general) with phase‑down after 2029 (Income Tax Act s.125.2) (Part 1). - New charity rules allow “qualifying disbursements” to non‑qualified donees under conditions, plus transparency on large grants to grantee organizations (Income Tax Act s.149.1; Regs s.3702.1) (Part 1). - Competition Act raises administrative monetary penalties and allows private access to the Tribunal for abuse of dominance (Part 5, Div. 15). - Consumers - “Drip pricing” (showing a price not attainable because of mandatory fees) is a false or misleading claim (civil and criminal) (Competition Act s.52(1.3); s.74.01(1.1)) (Part 5, Div. 15). - Vaping products face federal excise duty and stamping; illegal sale/possession penalties; import rules (effective October 1, 2022) (Part 3, Div. 1; Schedule 8). - Provinces/territories and municipalities - One‑time federal payments to provinces/territories totalling $2,000,000,000 (amounts listed by jurisdiction) (Part 5, Div. 6). - Up to $750,000,000 for transit shortfalls/needs and improving housing supply and affordability (Part 5, Div. 4). - Transparency, sanctions, and other - Corporations must send “individuals with significant control” information to the federal Director and it may be shared with law enforcement (Canada Business Corporations Act s.21.21–21.22) (Part 5, Div. 30). - New power to seize/forfeit sanctioned property (including digital assets) and use proceeds to support victims, reconstruction, or peace/security (Part 5, Div. 31). - Criminal Code creates an offence for wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust (max 2 years) (Part 5, Div. 21). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $2.75 billion (one‑time, 2022), plus unquantified revenue and tax changes. - One‑time authorizations: - Additional federal payments to provinces/territories: CAD $2.0 billion (Part 5, Div. 6). - Payments for transit shortfalls/needs and housing supply/affordability: up to CAD $750 million (Part 5, Div. 4). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Additional provincial/territorial payments | $2,000,000,000 | One‑time | (Part 5, Div. 6) Transit and housing payments | Up to $750,000,000 | One‑time | (Part 5, Div. 4) Luxury Items Tax revenue | Data unavailable | Ongoing from September 1, 2022 | (Part 4) Vaping excise duty revenue | Data unavailable | Ongoing from October 1, 2022 | (Part 3, Div. 1) Tax changes (credits/deductions) net impact | Data unavailable | Ongoing | (Part 1) Notes: - The Act authorizes the one‑time payments above; actual disbursement timing depends on the Minister (Part 5, Div. 4, Div. 6). - Many measures change revenues or private costs (e.g., Luxury Tax, Competition Act penalties, paid sick leave borne by employers). No consolidated fiscal note is in the bill text. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Helps households now: - Climate Action Incentive paid quarterly improves cash flow for families in backstop provinces (Income Tax Act s.122.8) (Part 1). - Doubled Home Accessibility Tax Credit supports aging at home (Income Tax Act s.118.041) (Part 1). - Supports workers and public health: - Up to 10 days paid medical leave reduces disease spread and keeps sick workers at home (Part 5, Div. 29). - Trades mobility deduction lowers costs to take jobs far from home (up to $4,000) (Part 1). - Fairness and consumer protection: - Luxury Tax asks high‑end buyers to contribute more (Part 4). - Competition Act curbs wage‑fixing and hidden fees (“drip pricing”), raises penalties, and lets victims challenge abuses (Part 5, Div. 15). - Housing and community support: - Non‑resident home purchase ban eases pressure on housing demand, while provinces/territories get $2.0 billion and transit/housing up to $750 million (Part 5, Div. 12; Div. 4; Div. 6). - Public health and youth: - Vaping excise duty with stamping combats youth vaping and illicit trade (Part 3, Div. 1). ## Opponents' View - Economic and jobs risk: - Luxury Tax may depress sales of Canadian‑made cars, boats, and aircraft, harming supply chains and skilled jobs, with uncertain revenue yield (Part 4). - Limited impact on housing: - Non‑resident ban may be easy to evade (e.g., via companies or relatives) and affects a small share of purchases, so affordability gains could be minor; enforcement will be complex (Part 5, Div. 12). - Cost and compliance load: - Paid medical leave shifts costs to federally regulated employers, notably small carriers and couriers; requires tracking accruals and certificates (Part 5, Div. 29). - Vaping excise and stamping could push users to illicit markets; small vape shops face new licensing, tax, and inventory rules (Part 3, Div. 1). - Litigation and regulatory risk: - Stronger Competition Act penalties and private access may chill aggressive but pro‑competitive conduct; “abuse of dominance” test broadened (Part 5, Div. 15). - Access and culture: - Copyright term extension delays works entering the public domain, raising costs for libraries, educators, and creators who build on prior works (Part 5, Div. 16).

Parliament Authorizes $115B for Government Services

## Summary Appropriation Act No. 2, 2022–23 authorizes the federal government to withdraw up to CAD $115,056,882,851 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to cover voted program spending for the year ending March 31, 2023 that is not otherwise provided for. It implements the 2022–23 Main Estimates items listed in Schedules 1 and 2, effective April 1, 2022 (Bill, Summary; Bill, “There may be paid…”; Effective date). Some Schedule 2 amounts can be paid through March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2; Order of payment). - Keeps federal programs and services operating in 2022–2023 across health, defence, Indigenous services, benefits administration, infrastructure, and more (Schedules 1–2). - Largest voted lines include Indigenous Services ($39.47 billion), National Defence ($24.29 billion), Employment and Social Development ($11.40 billion), Public Health Agency ($8.42 billion), and Treasury Board central votes ($7.82 billion) (Schedule 1). - Authorizes many departments to re‑spend certain revenues to offset costs (e.g., under Financial Administration Act s.29.1(2)(a)) (Schedule 1, multiple votes). - Unspent Schedule 2 funds lapse after the following fiscal year, with payments allowed until March 31, 2024 (Schedule 2; Order of payment). ## What it means for you - Households - Continuity of public health programming, including grants and contributions under Health and the Public Health Agency, from April 1, 2022 (Health: $3.71 billion; PHAC: $8.42 billion) (Schedule 1). - Continued delivery of employment, training, and social programs (Employment and Social Development: $11.40 billion) (Schedule 1). - Ongoing immigration processing and settlement supports (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: $3.70 billion) (Schedule 1). - Housing-related payments through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for loans forgiven, grants, and contributions (CMHC: $3.55 billion) (Schedule 1). - Veterans’ benefits and services continue (Veterans Affairs: $5.47 billion) (Schedule 1). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Funding for services in health, education, infrastructure, and community programs (Indigenous Services: $39.47 billion; Crown‑Indigenous Relations: $5.80 billion) (Schedule 1). - Workers - Federal public service operations remain funded (multiple departments’ operating votes; e.g., National Defence $17.57 billion operating; numerous operating votes across departments) (Schedule 1). - Research funding that supports students and researchers continues (CIHR $1.23 billion; NSERC $1.35 billion; SSHRC $1.07 billion) (Schedule 1). - Businesses - Programs for regional economic development and tourism continue (e.g., FedDev Ontario $695.9 million; PacifiCan $252.3 million; ACOA $427.5 million; Destination Canada $156.2 million) (Schedule 1). - Innovation, research, and industry supports (Innovation, Science and Economic Development: $5.53 billion; National Research Council: $1.19 billion) (Schedule 1). - Trade and international assistance programs proceed (Global Affairs: $7.29 billion) (Schedule 1). - Travellers and taxpayers - Border operations and capital funded, with authority available through March 31, 2024 (CBSA: $2.13 billion, Schedule 2). - Tax administration and service capacity funded, with authority available through March 31, 2024 (CRA: $4.12 billion, Schedule 2). - Local and provincial governments - Federal transfers for infrastructure projects continue (Infrastructure Canada: $7.06 billion) (Schedule 1). - Fisheries, transport, and parks capital spending that affects local assets continues (Fisheries and Oceans $3.81 billion; Transport $2.63 billion; Parks Canada $781.5 million) (Schedule 1). - Timing - Spending authorities take effect April 1, 2022 (Effective date). - Schedule 2 items may be paid until March 31, 2024; unspent balances then lapse (Schedule 2; Order of payment). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $115,056,882,851 (FY2022–2023). - Total authorized by this Act: $115,056,882,851, composed of: - $110,368,266,209 for Schedule 1 items, net of interim appropriations (Bill, paragraph (a); Schedule 1 heading). - $4,688,616,642 for Schedule 2 items, net of interim appropriations (Bill, paragraph (b); Schedule 2 heading). - Gross schedule totals and prior interim appropriations: - Schedule 1 gross: $184,288,798,540; less $73,920,532,331 granted earlier (Appropriation Act No. 1, 2022–23) (Schedule 1 heading). - Schedule 2 gross: $6,251,488,857; less $1,562,872,215 granted earlier (Appropriation Act No. 1, 2022–23) (Schedule 2 heading). - Selected large voted amounts (FY2022–2023): Item | Amount | Fiscal availability | Source ---|---:|---|--- Indigenous Services Canada | $39,465,816,483 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 National Defence | $24,291,816,334 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Employment and Social Development | $11,397,344,129 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Public Health Agency of Canada | $8,415,625,733 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (central votes total) | $7,818,222,862 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Infrastructure Canada | $7,061,893,193 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Global Affairs Canada | $7,288,792,552 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1 Canada Revenue Agency (Schedule 2) | $4,119,778,629 | FY2022–23 to FY2023–24 | Schedule 2 Canada Border Services Agency (Schedule 2) | $2,131,710,228 | FY2022–23 to FY2023–24 | Schedule 2 - Central votes include, for example: Government Contingencies $750,000,000; Operating Budget Carry Forward $2,100,000,000; Capital Budget Carry Forward $700,000,000; Paylist Requirements $600,000,000; Public Service Insurance $3,195,856,257; Government‑wide Initiatives $152,305,896 (Schedule 1: Treasury Board Secretariat). - Some items are loan authorities (e.g., Finance loan to International Development Association up to USD $287,710,000; Global Affairs share purchases/loans in USD; Industry loans) and many votes include revenue re‑spend authorities under the Financial Administration Act, which can lower net cash outlays (Schedule 1: Finance L10; Global Affairs L25, L30; Industry L20; multiple 29.1(2)(a) references). ## Proponents' View - Ensures continuity of essential services and payments across government for 2022–2023, including health ($3.71 billion for Health; $8.42 billion for PHAC), defence ($24.29 billion), Indigenous services ($39.47 billion), and employment and social programs ($11.40 billion) (Schedule 1). - Aligns with Main Estimates; Parliament votes on detailed items listed in Schedules 1–2, with purposes and conditions stated for each vote (Schedule 1; “Purpose of each item”). - Includes controls and timelines: funds must be used only for the stated purposes; Schedule 2 amounts lapse after the following fiscal year; adjustments after year‑end cannot draw new cash (Bill, Purpose clause; Schedule 2; Adjustments clauses). - Provides operational flexibility to manage urgent or unforeseen needs through central votes (e.g., Government Contingencies $750 million) and carry‑forward mechanisms, avoiding service interruptions (Schedule 1: Treasury Board Secretariat). - Allows cost recovery and revenue re‑spending in many organizations (e.g., regulators, service agencies), which can offset gross spending and reduce pressure on general revenues (Schedule 1, multiple 29.1(2)(a) authorities). ## Opponents' View - Scale and complexity make scrutiny difficult; the Act bundles hundreds of items and authorities into one supply bill, which can limit detailed parliamentary review within tight timelines (Schedules 1–2). - Central votes give the Treasury Board broad authority to supplement other appropriations and adjust grants and contributions during the year, which can reduce upfront transparency (Schedule 1: Treasury Board “Government Contingencies,” “Operating/Capital Carry Forward,” “Paylist Requirements”). - Two‑year appropriation for CRA and CBSA (Schedule 2) can shift spending into the next year; unspent balances lapse after 2023–2024, creating risks of deferrals or year‑end spending pressures (Schedule 2; Order of payment). - Many votes include wide revenue re‑spending authorities under the Financial Administration Act s.29.1(2)(a), which can obscure the net fiscal impact when comparing gross voted amounts to actual cash needs (Schedule 1, multiple votes). - Loan and share‑purchase authorities introduce repayment and foreign‑exchange risks, even when aimed at international institutions (e.g., Finance L10: USD $287,710,000; Global Affairs L25: USD $113,066,671; L30: $201,000,000) (Schedule 1).

Mid-Year $8.8B Federal Funding Boost

## Summary This bill is a mid-year funding law for the Government of Canada. It authorizes CAD $8,795,403,218 (one-time) for programs and services in fiscal year 2022-23 that were not already funded in the Main Estimates. The amounts match Supplementary Estimates (A), and are effective retroactively to April 1, 2022 (Schedule; Effective date (2)). - Funds large top-ups for Indigenous Services ($2.219 billion) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations ($1.398 billion) (Schedule). - Supports public health operations and grants at the Public Health Agency of Canada ($1.524 billion) (Schedule). - Adds funding for airport screening via CATSA ($329.735 million) and transport programs ($364.561 million) (Schedule). - Provides contributions for National Defence ($500 million) and Public Safety ($823.638 million) (Schedule). - Finances immigration operations and newcomer supports ($443.892 million) (Schedule). ## What it means for you - Households - Public health: Continued funding for disease surveillance, labs, and related grants through the Public Health Agency of Canada, effective April 1, 2022 (Schedule, PHAC Votes 1a, 5a, 10a; Effective date (2)). - Culture and media: Telefilm Canada receives $150,000,000 to support Canadian film and screen projects (Schedule, Telefilm Vote 1a). - Housing: $45,899,167 reimburses CMHC for forgiven loans, grants, and related costs under federal housing laws. This maintains existing housing programs; it does not create new ones (Schedule, CMHC Vote 1a). - Travelers - Airports: $329,734,920 to CATSA for screening operations and capital needs. This supports staffing and equipment at security checkpoints (Schedule, CATSA Vote 1a). - Ferries: $113,074,941 to Marine Atlantic for operating and capital costs, including the Nova Scotia–Newfoundland and Labrador route (Schedule, Marine Atlantic Vote 1a). - Indigenous peoples and northern communities - Services and infrastructure: $2,218,525,823 to Indigenous Services Canada for operating costs and contributions, including goods and services in kind (Schedule, ISC Votes 1a, 10a). - Agreements and community support: $1,398,098,639 to Crown‑Indigenous Relations for operating costs and contributions related to programs and settlements (Schedule, CIRNAC Votes 1a, 10a). - Northern economy: $7,378,225 in grants and contributions via the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (Schedule, CanNor Vote 5a). - Newcomers, students, and workers - Immigration: $443,891,556 for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada operations and contributions, including International Experience Canada services (Schedule, IRCC Votes 1a, 10a). - Local governments and service users - Transport programs: $334,439,600 in Transport Canada contributions and $29,796,369 for operations. Some funds may support projects on non-federal property, as permitted in the vote (Schedule, Transport Votes 1a, 5a, 10a). - Public safety: $823,638,161 in contributions that can fund emergency management and community safety initiatives (Schedule, Public Safety Vote 5a). - Parks and heritage: $26,809,638 for Parks Canada operations and capital, including contributions to provinces and municipalities (Schedule, Parks Canada Votes 1a, 5a). Notes on timing and administration: - All items take effect as of April 1, 2022. Transfers listed in the Estimates are deemed authorized from that date (Effective date (2); Transfers of appropriations). - Departments may finalize accounting adjustments after year-end until the Public Accounts are tabled in Parliament; this does not permit extra cash payments beyond the appropriation (Adjustments in accounts of Canada). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $8,795,403,218 (one-time, FY2022-23). - Source of authority: Supplementary Estimates (A), 2022–23, as set out in the Schedule to the Act (Schedule). - Effective date: Items are deemed in force as of April 1, 2022 (Effective date (2)). - Accounting: Charges may be adjusted after March 31, 2023 until the Public Accounts are tabled; no extra payments from the CRF are allowed for these adjustments (Adjustments in accounts of Canada). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Indigenous Services Canada (Votes 1a, 10a) | $2,218,525,823 | One-time (FY2022-23) | (Schedule) Crown‑Indigenous Relations (Votes 1a, 10a) | $1,398,098,639 | One-time | (Schedule) Public Health Agency of Canada (Votes 1a, 5a, 10a) | $1,523,836,518 | One-time | (Schedule) Public Safety (Vote 5a) | $823,638,161 | One-time | (Schedule) National Defence – grants and contributions (Vote 10a) | $500,000,000 | One-time | (Schedule) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (Votes 1a, 10a) | $443,891,556 | One-time | (Schedule) Transport Canada (Votes 1a, 5a, 10a) | $364,560,769 | One-time | (Schedule) CATSA – airport screening (Vote 1a) | $329,734,920 | One-time | (Schedule) Telefilm Canada (Vote 1a) | $150,000,000 | One-time | (Schedule) Marine Atlantic Inc. (Vote 1a) | $113,074,941 | One-time | (Schedule) Other listed votes (e.g., Finance $191,585,622; CMHC $45,899,167; Shared Services $85,983,575; Parks Canada $26,809,638; etc.) | Balance to $8,795,403,218 | One-time | (Schedule) ## Proponents' View - Maintains essential services without interruption by aligning legal authority with mid-year needs identified in Supplementary Estimates (A) (Schedule). - Targets major pressures: Indigenous services and settlements ($3.62 billion combined across two departments) and public health capacity ($1.52 billion) (Schedule). - Supports travel system recovery and safety through CATSA ($329.7 million), Transport Canada ($364.6 million), and Marine Atlantic ($113.1 million) (Schedule). - Allows departments to re-spend certain revenues within the year (e.g., IT services, screening services), which can improve efficiency without new taxes (e.g., Shared Services, IRCC, CATSA) (Schedule; references to Financial Administration Act s.29.1). - Provides flexibility where needed. For PHAC, grant amounts may be increased or decreased with Treasury Board approval, enabling faster response to public health needs (Schedule, PHAC Vote 10a). - Authorizes in‑kind contributions for defence (goods, services, or facility use), which can be faster and mission‑focused (Schedule, National Defence Vote 10a). ## Opponents' View - Oversight concerns: Spending is deemed effective retroactively to April 1, 2022, and transfers are deemed authorized from that date, which can limit Parliament’s ability to scrutinize before funds flow (Effective date (2); Transfers of appropriations). - Limited detail: Many votes fund “the grants listed in any of the Estimates,” which provides less program-level transparency in the statute itself (Schedule). - Flexibility risk: PHAC’s authority to increase or decrease listed grant amounts with Treasury Board approval may weaken direct parliamentary control over specific grant totals (Schedule, PHAC Vote 10a). - Post‑year adjustments: Charging appropriations after year‑end until the Public Accounts are tabled can blur when costs are finally recognized, reducing clarity for the public (Adjustments in accounts of Canada). - Scale and timing: $8.8 billion mid‑year is material; if departments cannot deploy funds quickly, lapses or rushed spending could occur, reducing value for money (Schedule; general timing risk). - Re‑spending authorities: Letting departments spend revenues they collect in‑year (e.g., service fees or internal services) can reduce visibility of gross expenditures and outcomes (Schedule; references to Financial Administration Act s.29.1).

National Plan for Seals and Fish Stocks

## Summary This bill orders the federal fisheries minister to create a national framework to conserve fish stocks and manage pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses). It sets content the framework must cover, requires consultations, and sets reporting deadlines to Parliament. It does not fund specific programs or set new penalties. - Requires a framework within 1 year of the Act coming into force, plus yearly effectiveness reports (Reports to Parliament (1); Annual Report (1)). - Calls for measures such as yearly pinniped censuses and “year‑round control” when populations exceed “acceptable levels” (Content (2)(b), (e)). - Directs the framework to regulate pinniped population levels using historic baselines and benchmarks from other northern countries (Content (2)(c)). - Encourages anti‑predator tools near fishing areas and spawning sites (Content (2)(d)). - Seeks to address trade barriers and promote making and selling seal products, especially in rural, coastal, and Indigenous communities (Content (2)(f), (g)). - Requires consultations with provinces, Indigenous governing bodies, and other stakeholders (Federal Framework Development (1)). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct changes to daily life or taxes stated in the bill. Future rules could affect seafood supply and prices if fish stocks change, but impacts are not specified. Data unavailable. - Workers (fishers, aquaculture, and processors) - You may see new policies on pinniped deterrents near gear and sites if the framework adopts measures the bill lists (Content (2)(d)). - Year‑round pinniped control could change local fishing conditions when populations exceed set levels (Content (2)(e)). - Annual pinniped counts may lead to more data collection in your area (Content (2)(b)). - Indigenous communities - The minister must consult Indigenous governing bodies when developing the framework (Federal Framework Development (1)). - Programs to support making and selling pinniped products may target Indigenous communities (Content (2)(g)). - Businesses (gear makers, deterrent technology, seal product supply chain) - Possible new demand for anti‑predator devices if promoted by the framework (Content (2)(d)). - The framework aims to reduce trade barriers and promote seal products, which could support processing and retail, subject to external market rules (Content (2)(f), (g)). - Provincial/territorial and local governments - Provincial ministries for fisheries, environment, and trade will be consulted (Federal Framework Development (1)). - You may be asked to cooperate on population surveys, control measures, and market development programs if the framework includes them (Content (2)(b), (e), (g)). - Environmental and animal welfare groups - The framework will address “harms caused by pinniped overpopulation” and allow population “control,” which could include controversial measures; the bill does not define methods (Preamble; Content (2)(a), (e)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations, new taxes, or fees in the bill text. The bill creates duties to plan, consult, and report (Federal Framework Development (1); Reports to Parliament (1); Annual Report (1)). - The framework must “provide for yearly pinniped censuses,” consider year‑round control when thresholds are exceeded, and establish programs to promote pinniped products, which may require future funding; amounts are not stated (Content (2)(b), (e), (g)). - Administrative costs for consultations and report publication are implied but not quantified (Reports to Parliament (1)–(2); Annual Report (1)–(2)). ## Proponents' View - Protect fish stocks and marine ecosystems by addressing pinniped predation and gear damage, which the preamble describes as significant (Preamble; Content (2)(a)). - Use better data through required yearly censuses to guide decisions and adjust measures over time (Content (2)(b)). - Set population targets using historic levels and northern‑country benchmarks to keep fish at commercially viable levels (Content (2)(c)). - Reduce losses for fishers and aquaculture operators by encouraging anti‑predator tools and year‑round control where populations exceed acceptable levels (Content (2)(d), (e)). - Support rural, coastal, and Indigenous economies by tackling trade barriers and promoting the making and selling of seal products (Content (2)(f), (g)). - Ensure cooperation and buy‑in by consulting provinces, Indigenous governing bodies, and stakeholders, and by reporting yearly to Parliament (Federal Framework Development (1); Annual Report (1)). ## Opponents' View - Scientific risk: “Acceptable levels” are tied to historic populations and comparisons to other countries, which may not fit local ecosystems or current climate conditions; the bill does not define methods to set or update these levels (Content (2)(c)). - Animal welfare and conservation concerns: Promoting “year‑round control” implies lethal or disruptive measures; the bill does not specify safeguards, methods, or monitoring (Content (2)(e)). - Implementation gaps: The bill mandates censuses and control measures in the framework but provides no funding or timelines beyond the initial framework and annual reports (Reports to Parliament (1); Content (2)(b), (e)). Costs and capacity needs are unknown. Data unavailable. - Trade limits: The framework must “address trade barriers,” but the bill cannot change foreign laws or international bans; market gains are uncertain (Content (2)(f)). - Legal and governance risk: The bill directs federal regulation of wildlife populations without detailing how this aligns with existing statutes or Indigenous rights; dispute risks are unclear. Data unavailable.

New housing tax, credits, and COVID funding

## Summary This bill implements parts of Canada’s December 14, 2021 Economic and Fiscal Update. It creates and changes tax credits, sets a new tax on underused housing owned by non-resident, non-Canadians, funds COVID-19 measures, and adjusts Employment Insurance for seasonal workers. Several measures apply retroactively to 2021. - Creates a 25% refundable tax credit for businesses that improve ventilation (September 1, 2021–December 31, 2022), with per-location and per-entity caps (Part 1; Regulations Part XCVII). - Expands the Northern Residents Deduction travel component to allow a standard amount up to $1,200 per person if no employer travel benefit (2021 onward) (Part 1). - Increases the School Supplies Tax Credit for eligible educators from 15% to 25% and adds certain devices (2021 onward) (Part 1). - Returns fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses via a refundable tax credit in designated provinces (2021 onward) (Part 1). - Enacts a 1% Underused Housing Tax on vacant or underused Canadian residential property owned by non-resident, non‑Canadians, with filing, exemptions, and penalties (effective January 1, 2022; first payment due April 30 following year) (Underused Housing Tax Act Parts 1–4). - Authorizes up to CAD $2.12 billion in payments for school ventilation, provincial proof-of-vaccination, and COVID‑19 tests (Parts 4–6). - Sets temporary EI rules to extend maximum weeks for certain seasonal workers (benefit periods starting September 26, 2021–October 29, 2022) (Part 7). ## What it means for you - Households - Northern residents: May claim travel costs up to a standard $1,200 per person even without employer travel benefits, subject to limits on number of trips and other rules (2021 onward) (Part 1; s.110.7; Regulations s.7304). - Non-resident, non‑Canadian homeowners: Must file an annual return and pay a 1% tax on the value of vacant or underused residential properties in Canada unless an exemption applies; payment due by April 30 of the following year (Underused Housing Tax Act, Part 3 s. (3), (6); Part 4). - Exemptions include primary residence, sufficient qualifying occupancy (180+ days), new ownership, disaster/renovation periods, seasonal inaccessibility, and others (Underused Housing Tax Act s. (7)–(9)). - Workers - Seasonal workers: If you meet set conditions and live in listed regions, you may qualify for more weeks of EI regular benefits during benefit periods starting September 26, 2021–October 29, 2022 (Part 7; s.12(2.3)–(2.5)). - Educators - Eligible educators: Credit rate rises to 25% on up to $1,000 in eligible supplies per year (max credit $250). Devices such as laptops, tablets, webcams, and projectors now qualify if not provided by your employer for use outside the classroom (2021 onward) (Part 1; s.122.9; Regulations s.9600). - Businesses - All eligible entities (including individuals carrying on business, partnerships, and qualifying CCPCs): May claim a refundable credit equal to 25% of qualifying ventilation expenses incurred September 1, 2021–December 31, 2022. Caps: up to $10,000 in eligible expenses per location and $50,000 per entity across all locations (affiliated entities share limits). Max credit is effectively up to $12,500 per entity for the period (Part 1; s.127.43; Regulations Part XCVII). - CEBA borrowers: Government set a six‑year limitation period to sue for recovery after default, with rules on acknowledgments and set-off against federal payments (Part 3). - Farmers - Farming businesses in designated provinces: New refundable tax credit returns fuel charge proceeds. The amount depends on your eligible farming expenses, your share earned in each province, and an annual payment rate set by the Minister of Finance (2021 onward) (Part 1; new section following s.127.41). - Provinces and territories - School ventilation: Federal payments capped at $100 million, with specified maximums by jurisdiction (Part 4). - Proof of vaccination: Federal payments up to $300 million total (Part 5). - COVID‑19 tests: Federal payments up to $1.72 billion; Health Minister must report to Parliament quarterly on payments, tests purchased, and distribution (Part 6). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $2.12 billion in authorized direct payments (timing varies); revenue impacts from tax credits and the Underused Housing Tax are not quantified in the bill. - Direct appropriations authorized: Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- School ventilation funding to provinces/territories | CAD $100 million | One-time cap | Part 4 (maximums by jurisdiction) Provincial proof-of-vaccination support | CAD $300 million | One-time cap | Part 5 COVID-19 tests (federal purchases/distribution) | CAD $1.72 billion | One-time cap (expenses on/after April 1, 2021) | Part 6; reporting required - Tax measures (revenue effects): - Ventilation Improvement Tax Credit (25%; caps noted): Data unavailable. - Northern Residents Deduction expansion (travel component): Data unavailable. - School Supplies Tax Credit increase to 25% and expanded eligibility: Data unavailable. - Refundable credit returning fuel charge proceeds to farmers: Payment rates set by Minister of Finance; Data unavailable (Part 1). - Underused Housing Tax 1% on underused homes owned by non‑resident, non‑Canadians: Revenue impact Data unavailable (Underused Housing Tax Act). - Administration/enforcement costs (e.g., CRA for UHT): Data unavailable. - EI seasonal workers temporary extension: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves indoor air quality in workplaces and schools by lowering costs of HVAC upgrades and HEPA filtration; the business credit covers 25% of eligible costs within specified caps, and $100 million supports school projects (Part 1 s.127.43; Regulations Part XCVII; Part 4). - Provides targeted relief to educators by raising the refundable rate to 25% and adding modern teaching devices, increasing the maximum annual benefit to $250 per educator (Part 1; s.122.9; Regulations s.9600). - Supports northern residents with a simpler option to claim up to a $1,200 standard travel amount per person when no employer benefit exists (2021 onward) (Part 1; s.110.7). - Returns fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses through a refundable credit tied to eligible farming expenses and provincial shares (Part 1; new section after s.127.41). - Discourages vacant housing and increases supply by imposing a 1% annual tax on underused homes owned by non‑resident, non‑Canadians, with clear exemptions and modern enforcement tools (Underused Housing Tax Act Parts 1–4, 7). - Gives seasonal workers in specified regions more predictable EI coverage during 2021–2022 under defined criteria (Part 7; s.12(2.3)–(2.5)). ## Opponents' View - Compliance burden and penalties under the Underused Housing Tax may be high for affected owners, with minimum failure‑to‑file penalties of $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for corporations, plus percentage add‑ons (Underused Housing Tax Act Div. 8 s.(1)–(2)). - Ventilation tax credit rules are complex (affiliation, per‑location and per‑entity caps, excluded costs), which may raise administrative costs and limit uptake (Part 1 s.127.43; Regulations Part XCVII). - Expanding refundable and non‑refundable tax measures reduces federal revenues; the bill provides no public cost estimates for these changes (Part 1). Data on expected UHT revenues is also not provided in the bill (Underused Housing Tax Act). - Returning fuel charge proceeds to farmers via a formula set by the Minister of Finance introduces uncertainty on payment rates and distribution until rates are specified (Part 1; “payment rate” defined and designated by the Minister). - The EI seasonal extension is time‑limited and geographically targeted, which may create uneven support across regions and could be complex to administer given multi‑year eligibility tests (Part 7; s.12(2.3)–(2.5)).

Capital Gains Break for Quick Donations

## Summary This bill changes the federal Income Tax Act to waive capital gains tax on part of the gain when someone sells private company shares or Canadian real estate to an arm’s length buyer and donates cash from the sale to a registered charity within 30 days. Similar relief applies when an estate sells these assets after death and makes a quick charitable gift. Strong anti‑avoidance rules restrict related‑party transactions and can claw back the tax break if certain events happen within 60 months (5 years) (38(a.4); 38.3; 38.4(1)-(5)). The changes apply to 2022 and later tax years. - Capital gains inclusion rate becomes 0% on the portion of the gain tied to cash donated within 30 days, using a set formula (38(a.4); 38.3(a)). - Sale must be to an arm’s length purchaser; no related or affiliated parties to the seller or the charity (38.4(1)(b)(iii)(A)). - Donor must be a Canadian resident at year‑end; estates can also qualify under set conditions (38(a.4)(i)(C); 38(a.4)(ii)). - If the seller, a non‑arm’s‑length person, or the charity later reacquires the asset (or related property), or if certain share redemptions occur, the exemption is reversed and tax becomes payable (38.4(2)-(4)). - Flow‑through share anti‑avoidance rules are updated to interact with the new exemption (40(12); 53(1)(e)(i)(A)). - Effective for 2022 and subsequent taxation years (Application clause). ## What it means for you - Households and individual investors - If you sell private corporation shares or Canadian real estate to an arm’s length buyer and donate some of the cash within 30 days to a qualified donee (e.g., a registered charity), the taxable part of your capital gain tied to the donated cash becomes zero under a proportional formula you must designate in your return (38(a.4); 38.3(a)). - The exemption only covers the portion of the gain linked to the amount of cash you both received before the gift and actually donated, net of any advantage (benefit) you got for the gift (38.3(a)). - You must be a Canadian resident at the end of the tax year to use the exemption (38(a.4)(i)(C)). - You still claim the normal charitable donation tax credit for the cash you give; this bill does not change credit rates or limits (no amendments to 118.1 credits in the bill text). - Estates and executors - When someone dies, there is a deemed disposition at death. If the estate then sells the asset to an arm’s length buyer and donates cash within 30 days, the deceased’s taxable capital gain can be reduced to zero proportionally, if designated by the legal representative (38(a.4)(ii); 38.3(b)). - Timing and designation rules are strict: the estate must make the gift within 30 days of the estate’s sale and meet conditions in 118.1(5.1) (38(a.4)(ii)(D); 38.3(b)). - Business owners and private corporations - Sales must be to arm’s length purchasers; transactions involving related or affiliated parties to you or to the charity do not qualify (38.4(1)(b)(iii)(A)). - If shares are redeemed, acquired, or cancelled in the same year by a corporation that is non‑arm’s‑length to you, the exemption does not apply, and similar events within 60 months can claw it back (38.4(1)(c)(ii); 38.4(3)(b)). - Any reacquisition by you, your non‑arm’s‑length persons, or the charity (or property that is substituted for, or derives value from, the original asset) within 60 months will reverse the exemption and create a deemed capital gain in that later year, with interest‑like consequences (38.4(2)-(5)). - Charities and qualified donees - You receive cash donations shortly after a donor’s sale. You must remain at arm’s length from the buyer and avoid acquiring the sold property (or substituted/derivative property) during the year or within 60 months, or the donor’s exemption is reversed (38.4(1)(b)(iii)(A); 38.4(1)(c)(i); 38.4(3)(a)). - Split‑receipting rules still apply; if there is an “advantage” to the donor, that reduces the eligible amount for the exemption formula (38.3(a) “C”; 118.1(16)). - All taxpayers - The new relief interacts with existing flow‑through share rules; if you donate flow‑through shares, special deemed gains can still apply even if the new 0% inclusion applies, as under current law, now extended to 38(a.4) (40(12); 53(1)(e)(i)(A)). - Effective for transactions after 2021 and for 2022 onward filings (Application clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct spending is authorized. The fiscal impact is foregone federal income tax revenue from reduced taxable capital gains on qualifying transactions; amount depends on uptake and transaction size (38(a.4); 38.3; 38.4). - No official fiscal note was provided in the bill text. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Encourages more charitable giving by owners of private businesses and real estate, by removing capital gains tax on the donated portion of proceeds, similar to existing treatment for gifts of publicly traded securities (38(a.4); 38.3(a)). - Reduces administrative burdens for charities by steering donors to give cash, not illiquid assets; the bill requires a sale and a cash gift within 30 days (38.4(1)(b)(ii); 38(a.4)(i)(B)). - Minimizes avoidance with clear guardrails: arm’s length sale, prohibition on related‑party series, and 60‑month clawback if the donor or charity reacquires the property or if certain redemptions occur (38.4(1)(b)-(c); 38.4(2)-(4)). - Targets the tax relief only to the portion actually donated, using a proportional formula and reducing for any donor “advantage” (38.3(a)). - Extends similar relief to estates, enabling planned giving at death with strict timelines and designations (38(a.4)(ii); 38.3(b)). ## Opponents' View - Revenue loss risk: reduces capital gains tax collections on qualifying sales, while donors still claim charitable tax credits, creating a stacked incentive. Magnitude is uncertain without an official fiscal estimate. Data unavailable. - Distributional concern: benefits mainly individuals with appreciated private shares or real estate, who tend to have higher incomes and wealth; everyday filers may see little direct benefit. Data unavailable. - Complexity and enforcement: CRA must monitor arm’s length status, series of transactions, substituted property, derivative value, and 60‑month events, which are fact‑intensive and can be hard to audit (38.4(1)(b)-(c); 38.4(2)-(4)). - Risk of unintended planning: structures could time cash receipts and gifts to maximize the exempt portion under the formula, and share redemptions or reorganizations could inadvertently trigger clawbacks (38.3(a); 38.4(3)(b)). - Compliance burden on charities: they must ensure arm’s length status and avoid acquiring the property (or related property) for 60 months, or donors face retroactive tax, which may strain donor‑charity relations (38.4(1)(b)(iii)(A); 38.4(3)(a)).

Drug Possession Decriminalized, Records Expunged

## Summary This bill, titled the Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act, would decriminalize simple possession of controlled drugs at the federal level, create a no‑fee process to expunge past simple possession convictions, and require a national public health strategy on substance use. It also makes related changes to the Criminal Code and other federal laws. The bill does not legalize trafficking, production, or import/export of drugs. - Repeals the federal offence of possession under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) (Part 1; repeals s.4 and s.4.1). - Keeps crimes for trafficking, production, and import/export in place (CDSA ss.5–7 remain) (Part 1). - Creates a no‑fee expungement process for past simple possession convictions; federal records must be destroyed or removed (Part 2). - Recognizes expungement in the Criminal Code; a person is deemed never charged or convicted for that offence (Part 2; Criminal Code s.607 amendments). - Requires the Minister of Health to develop and table a national strategy within 1 year, with specific elements like safe supply access and universal access to treatment and harm reduction (Part 3, s.2–4). ## What it means for you - Households - Simple possession of controlled substances would no longer be a federal crime once this Act is in force (Part 1). Other drug crimes still apply (e.g., trafficking, production). - Police could not lay new charges for simple possession under the CDSA. Existing simple possession cases would be affected by repeal of s.4, but outcomes depend on case status and prosecutorial decisions. Data unavailable. - People with past simple possession convictions - You could apply to the Parole Board of Canada for expungement. There is no application fee (Part 2, “No fee payable”). - You must submit a sworn statement that your conviction was for conduct that would not be an offence after this Act (Part 2). - If granted, you are deemed never to have been charged or convicted for that offence (Part 2, “Effect of expungement”). - The Parole Board must notify the RCMP, which must destroy or remove federal judicial records in its systems and notify other federal bodies (Part 2). - Federal departments and agencies must destroy or remove related records in their systems (Part 2). - Provincial and municipal police and courts are notified, but only federal bodies are required by this Act to destroy or remove records (Part 2). You may still need to address provincial or municipal records. Data unavailable. - Workers - Health, social service, and harm reduction workers may see program changes over time. The bill requires a national strategy, not immediate service expansion (Part 3). - People who had simple possession records and receive expungement may face fewer barriers to jobs that require federal criminal record checks (Part 2). - Businesses and nonprofits - Hiring and volunteer screening that relies on federal criminal record databases would no longer show expunged simple possession convictions (Part 2). - Workplace drug policies are not changed by this Act. Compliance duties for regulated industries remain. Data unavailable. - Police, courts, and local governments - Police would need to update policies and training to reflect that simple possession is not a CDSA offence (Part 1). - Courts would see fewer simple possession cases. Expungement orders must be recognized under the Criminal Code (Part 2; Criminal Code s.607). - RCMP and federal departments must implement record destruction/removal processes after expungement orders (Part 2). - Provincial and municipal agencies receive notice of expungement orders, but this Act does not require them to destroy records (Part 2). - People who use health and harm reduction services - The Minister of Health must develop, table, and publish a national strategy within 1 year of the Act coming into force, after consultations (Part 3, s.2–4). - The strategy must address safe supply access, universal access to recovery, treatment, overdose prevention, relapse prevention, and supervised consumption services, plus prevention and anti‑stigma measures (Part 3, s.2(3)). - The Minister must report on implementation results in each province within 1 year after the strategy is tabled (Part 3, s.4). - The bill itself does not fund or launch these services; it directs strategy development and reporting (Part 3). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - The bill contains no explicit appropriations or funding amounts (Bill text). - Likely federal administrative costs include: - Parole Board application intake, review, and orders (Part 2). Data unavailable. - RCMP and federal departments’ record destruction/removal and notifications (Part 2). Data unavailable. - Health Canada consultations, strategy development, tabling, publication, and follow‑up reporting (Part 3). Data unavailable. - Potential offsets/savings: - Fewer simple possession arrests and prosecutions may reduce justice system workloads. Data unavailable. - Any costs to expand “safe supply” or “universal access” to services would depend on future budgets and agreements; this Act does not allocate funds (Part 3). ## Proponents' View - Shifts from punishment to a health approach by removing the possession offence and mandating a public health strategy (Part 1; Part 3). - Reduces the burden of criminal records for simple possession through a clear, no‑fee expungement process, with federal record destruction (Part 2). - Keeps penalties for trafficking, production, and import/export, aiming to target supply crimes while decriminalizing personal use (Part 1). - Requires evidence‑based measures, safe supply access, and universal access to treatment and harm reduction in the national strategy (Part 3, s.2(3)). - Could free police, courts, and corrections from processing low‑level possession cases, allowing resources to focus on serious offences and health supports (assumption; no fiscal estimate provided). ## Opponents' View - The bill mandates a national strategy but provides no funding; “universal access” and “safe supply” goals may be unfunded or shift costs to provinces (Part 3; assumption flagged). - Removing the possession offence may create transitional enforcement challenges and require significant retraining and policy updates for police (Part 1; implementation risk). - Expungement compels federal record destruction but does not require provincial or municipal police and courts to delete records, which could leave gaps (Part 2). - Without guaranteed expansion of treatment and harm reduction, decriminalization alone may not reduce harms and could increase public consumption concerns (assumption; outcomes not specified in the bill). - Program design risks exist for “low‑barrier safe supply,” including diversion and quality control; the bill sets direction but not safeguards or oversight details (Part 3; details to be determined in the strategy).

Interim funding keeps federal services running

## Summary This bill (Appropriation Act No. 1, 2022–23) authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $75,483,404,546 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to keep federal programs and services running for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023. It is an interim supply bill, granting partial-year funding for many departments based on the 2022–23 Main Estimates. It also sets rules for timing, accounting adjustments, and when any unused authority will lapse. - Keeps federal services operating by providing partial funding early in the fiscal year (clauses (a)–(i)). - Directs large interim funding to Indigenous Services, Public Health Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development, Health, Veterans Affairs, RCMP, and others (Schedules 1.2, 1.5–1.7). - Allows some border and tax administration funds (CBSA, CRA) to be used through March 31, 2024, then lapse if unused (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Sets “order of payment” and lapse rules to manage oversight and year-end accounting (Order of payment (2); Adjustments in accounts of Canada). - Does not change tax laws or create new programs; it authorizes spending for purposes set out in the Estimates (Purpose of each item; Schedules). ## What it means for you - Households and service users - Federal payments and services continue without interruption, including public health programming (Public Health Agency: 7,199,096,023; Health contributions: 2,274,727,661) (Schedule 1.7). - Benefits and programs administered by Employment and Social Development continue receiving funds (6,879,564,682 in contributions) (Schedule 1.5). - Veterans’ benefits and services continue to be funded (1,758,706,249 in grants and contributions) (Schedule 1.2). - Passenger rail (VIA Rail) and ferry services (Marine Atlantic) continue receiving support (326,848,745; 37,359,152) (Schedules 1.1, 1.7). - National parks and heritage sites remain open and maintained (Parks Canada operating 207,364,714; capital 69,065,092) (Schedules 1.1, 1.3). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Significant interim funding for Indigenous Services (11,059,272,440 in contributions) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations (3,602,954,211 in grants and contributions; 729,164,535 operating) supports ongoing services and agreements (Schedule 1.6). - Workers and researchers - Federal employees and contractors continue to be paid across departments (bill-wide). - Research funding flows through NSERC (431,789,589) and SSHRC (343,124,237) (Schedule 1.1). - Businesses and nonprofits - Grants and contributions programs administered by departments (e.g., Industry, Heritage, Employment and Social Development) continue to accept and pay claims (multiple Schedules). - Air transport security services at airports continue (236,452,425) (Schedule 1.2). - Travellers - Border services and tax administration maintain operations with funding that can be used into 2023–2024 if needed (CBSA and CRA under Schedule 2; payments allowed until March 31, 2024) (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Local and provincial governments - Parks Canada can make contributions to provinces and municipalities for shared projects (Schedule 1.1). - Treasury Board contingencies provide a buffer for urgent, unforeseen needs across departments (687,500,000) (Schedule 1.7). - Timing - Applies to the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023; some items may be charged after year-end for accounting adjustments until Public Accounts are tabled (Adjustments in accounts of Canada). - Certain Schedule 2 funds may be paid until March 31, 2024, then lapse if unused (Order of payment (2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $75,483,404,546 (FY2022–2023). - Total interim appropriation authority from the Consolidated Revenue Fund: 75,483,404,546 (clauses (a)–(i)). - Components of the total, as specified in the bill: Item | Amount | Timeframe | Source --- | --- | --- | --- (a) Three‑twelfths of selected Main Estimates items | 28,652,262,606 | FY2022–23 | Clause (a) (b) Four‑twelfths (Schedule 1.1 items) | 5,363,275,810 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.1 (c) Five‑twelfths (Schedule 1.2 items) | 4,292,782,114 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.2 (d) Six‑twelfths (Schedule 1.3 items) | 2,499,738,866 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.3 (e) Seven‑twelfths (Schedule 1.4 items) | 26,864,132 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.4 (f) Eight‑twelfths (Schedule 1.5 items) | 7,013,564,682 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.5 (g) Nine‑twelfths (Schedule 1.6 items) | 15,780,903,903 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.6 (h) Eleven‑twelfths (Schedule 1.7 items) | 11,854,012,428 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.7 (i) Twelve‑twelfths (Schedule 1.8 items) | 5 | FY2022–23 | Schedule 1.8 Schedule 2 (three‑twelfths; CBSA, CRA) | 1,562,872,215 | Payable through March 31, 2024; then lapse | Schedule 2; Order of payment (2) - Selected large interim allocations: - Indigenous Services contributions: 11,059,272,440 (Schedule 1.6). - Public Health Agency operating: 7,199,096,023; contributions: 493,869,233 (Schedule 1.7). - Employment and Social Development contributions: 6,879,564,682 (Schedule 1.5). - Crown‑Indigenous Relations grants and contributions: 3,602,954,211 (Schedule 1.6). - Veterans Affairs grants and contributions: 1,758,706,249 (Schedule 1.2). - RCMP operating: 1,257,023,349; grants and contributions: 178,447,285 (Schedule 1.2). ## Proponents' View - Ensures continuity of government operations and payments at the start of the fiscal year, avoiding service disruptions for citizens and vendors (Preamble; clause authorizing payments). - Uses partial‑year fractions (3/12 to 11/12) to limit upfront authority while Parliament considers full supply, balancing cash flow and oversight (clauses (a)–(i)). - Channels significant interim funding to essential services: Indigenous services (11.06 billion), public health (7.20 billion operating; 0.49 billion contributions), social programs (6.88 billion), veterans (1.76 billion) (Schedules 1.5–1.7, 1.2). - Sets order‑of‑payment and lapse rules so unused authority expires on schedule, with clear priority to charge earliest appropriations first (Order of payment (2)). - Allows year‑end accounting adjustments without new cash outlays, improving accuracy of the Public Accounts (Adjustments in accounts of Canada). ## Opponents' View - Authorizes a large sum (75.48 billion) with limited detail in the statute itself; many specifics are in the Main Estimates rather than in this bill, reducing line‑by‑line scrutiny within the act (Total appropriation; Purpose of each item). - Broad “authority to expend revenues” under Financial Administration Act s.29.1(2)(a) appears across multiple votes, which can reduce visibility into gross spending versus netted revenues (e.g., Health, Justice, Transport, Shared Services, RCMP) (Schedules 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.7). - Schedule 2 allows payments through March 31, 2024 and cross‑year charging, which may weaken annual spending discipline and complicate tracking by fiscal year (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Treasury Board “Government Contingencies” (687,500,000) can fund urgent or unforeseen expenditures, including new or increased grants and contributions, giving broad discretion with less prior scrutiny (Schedule 1.7). - Some grants can be increased or decreased with Treasury Board approval (e.g., Veterans Affairs, RCMP, Public Health Agency), which adds flexibility but reduces fixed caps visible in the act (Schedules 1.2, 1.7).

Parliament approves $13.2B year-end funding

## Summary Appropriation Act No. 5, 2021–22 gives the federal government authority to spend up to CAD $13,209,519,773 for programs and operations in fiscal year 2021–2022 that were not already funded. It implements items from Supplementary Estimates (C) and backdates them to April 1, 2021. Some items can be paid through March 31, 2023 to finish projects and adjust accounts (Schedules 1–2). - Funds major health operations and grants, including Health Canada ($3.734 billion) and the Public Health Agency of Canada ($3.020 billion) (Schedule 1). - Supports Indigenous services and Crown‑Indigenous relations ($1.040 billion combined) (Schedule 1). - Provides international assistance and development funding ($828.2 million) (Schedule 1). - Adds operating and capital funds for National Defence ($638.3 million) and Transport ($221.5 million) (Schedule 1). - Writes off certain student/apprentice and immigration loan debts ($170.5 million + $0.175 million; plus $2,765 in debt forgiveness) (Schedule 1). - Allows Canada Border Services Agency ($161.1 million) and Canada Revenue Agency ($236.7 million) to carry spending into 2022–2023 (Schedule 2). ## What it means for you - Households - Public health programs continue. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency receive large operating and grant funding for 2021–2022 (Schedule 1, Health 1c/10c; PHAC 1c/10c). - Student/apprentice loans: 26,711 debts totaling $170,358,003 are written off under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and Apprentice Loans Act. A write‑off is an accounting step for uncollectible debts; it usually ends active collection, but it is not the same as statutory forgiveness (Schedule 1, Employment and Social Development 10c). - Immigration loans: 257 debts totaling $172,941 are written off, and one debt of $2,765 is forgiven (legally cancelled) (Schedule 1, Citizenship and Immigration 15c/20c). - Veterans programs continue. Veterans Affairs receives operating funds and grants/contributions ($13.1 million total) (Schedule 1, Veterans Affairs 1c/5c). - Workers - Federal employees, RCMP, and Canadian Forces members: Treasury Board gets $205,962,726 for compensation adjustments and $200,000,000 for paylist needs (parental/maternity allowances, severance, etc.) (Schedule 1, Treasury Board 15c/30c). - National Defence receives funds including $108,893,191 for member insurance and benefit programs (Schedule 1, National Defence 15c). - Businesses and non‑profits - Grants and contributions flow through departments such as Industry ($113.6 million), Canadian Heritage ($223.8 million), Fisheries and Oceans ($24.9 million in grants/contributions within a $242.0 million package), and Transport ($175.8 million in grants/contributions within a $221.5 million package). Eligibility and program terms are defined in the Supplementary Estimates (C) items referenced by the Act (Schedule 1). - Provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous governments - Infrastructure Canada receives $521,757,188 in contributions for projects (Schedule 1, Infrastructure 10c). - Indigenous Services ($766.4 million) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations ($274.4 million) receive operating funds and large contributions that support services and agreements with Indigenous organizations and communities (Schedule 1, Indigenous Services 1c/10c; Crown‑Indigenous Relations 1c/10c). - Environment and Fisheries items allow contributions to provinces/municipalities for construction and joint projects (Schedule 1, Environment 5c/10c; Fisheries and Oceans 5c/10c). - Service users - VIA Rail receives $35,239,393 for operations and capital (Schedule 1, VIA Rail 1c). - Border and tax services have added funds that can be used through March 31, 2023: CBSA ($161.1 million) and CRA ($236.7 million) (Schedule 2). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $13,209,519,773 (FY2021–2022), of which $397,788,489 may be paid through March 31, 2023. - Total Schedule 1 authority: $12,811,731,284 for 2021–2022 (Schedule 1). - Total Schedule 2 authority: $397,788,489 chargeable to 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 (Schedule 2). - Lapse rules: Unused Schedule 1 amounts lapse at year‑end subject to non‑cash adjustments before Public Accounts are tabled; unused Schedule 2 amounts lapse at the end of 2022–2023 (Bill, Adjustments and Order of payment; Schedule 2). - Effective date: All items deemed in effect as of April 1, 2021 (Bill, Effective date). - Order of payment: Earlier appropriations are charged before later ones; Schedule 2 items can be paid up to March 31, 2023 (Bill, Order of payment). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Health Canada (operations and grants) | $3,734,310,565 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (Health 1c/10c) Public Health Agency of Canada (operations and contributions) | $3,020,401,379 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (PHAC 1c/10c) Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (including humanitarian, development, security) | $828,181,712 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (DFATD 1c/5c/10c) Indigenous Services Canada (operations and contributions) | $766,429,191 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (ISC 1c/10c) National Defence (operations, capital, benefits, grants) | $638,339,016 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (DND 1c/5c/10c/15c) Infrastructure Canada (contributions) | $521,757,188 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (Infrastructure 10c) Treasury Board Secretariat (compensation and paylist) | $415,519,988 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (TBS 1c/15c/30c) Fisheries and Oceans (operations, capital, contributions) | $242,048,239 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (DFO 1c/5c/10c) Transport (operations, capital, contributions) | $221,518,116 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (Transport 1c/5c/10c) Crown‑Indigenous Relations (operations and contributions) | $274,446,889 | One‑time authority for FY2021–2022 | Schedule 1 (CIRNAC 1c/10c) Canada Revenue Agency (operations and capital) | $236,674,199 | Available through March 31, 2023 | Schedule 2 (CRA 1c/5c) Canada Border Services Agency (operations and capital) | $161,114,290 | Available through March 31, 2023 | Schedule 2 (CBSA 1c/5c) Student/apprentice loan write‑offs | $170,358,003 | One‑time accounting adjustment | Schedule 1 (ESDC 10c) Immigration loan write‑offs and forgiveness | $175,706 (incl. $2,765 forgiven) | One‑time accounting adjustment | Schedule 1 (IRCC 15c/20c) ## Proponents' View - Maintains essential services to year‑end by providing legal spending authority for items in Supplementary Estimates (C), backdated to April 1, 2021 (Bill, Effective date; Schedule 1). - Funds the federal health response with large allocations to Health Canada ($3.734 billion) and the Public Health Agency ($3.020 billion) (Schedule 1). - Supports Indigenous communities through $766.4 million for Indigenous Services and $274.4 million for Crown‑Indigenous Relations, largely in contributions to organizations and governments (Schedule 1). - Enables international assistance and development ($767.8 million in grants/contributions; $828.2 million total for the department) for humanitarian needs and global peace (Schedule 1, DFATD 10c). - Addresses workforce obligations across government with $205.96 million for compensation adjustments and $200 million for parental/maternity allowances and other paylist pressures (Schedule 1, TBS 15c/30c). - Tidies federal accounts by writing off uncollectible loans (student/apprentice $170.36 million; immigration $0.173 million) to reflect reality and reduce collection costs (Schedule 1, ESDC 10c; IRCC 20c). ## Opponents' View - Limited transparency in the Act text: many lines authorize “the grants listed in any of the Estimates” without program‑level detail, reducing Parliament’s ability to scrutinize specific recipients (multiple items across Schedule 1). - Backdating to April 1, 2021 and allowing payments into 2022–2023 for Schedule 2 may weaken real‑time oversight and compress review near fiscal year‑end (Bill, Effective date; Schedule 2, Order of payment). - Large, late‑year allocations risk inefficient “March rush” spending or lapses, given that unused amounts lapse at year‑end (Schedule 1) or the following year (Schedule 2) (Bill, Lapse and Adjustments clauses). - Broad authority to “expend revenues to offset expenditures” under Financial Administration Act 29.1 in many votes can dilute parliamentary control over gross spending levels (e.g., Health 1c; DFO 1c; Transport 1c; multiple items in Schedule 1). - Loan write‑offs and small targeted forgiveness items are approved in bulk, with limited public detail on criteria for individual accounts, which may raise consistency and fairness questions (Schedule 1, ESDC 10c; IRCC 15c/20c).

Federal $2.5B for COVID-19 Tests

## Summary This bill lets the federal Minister of Health spend up to CAD $2.5 billion on COVID-19 tests and related costs. It also lets the Minister transfer COVID-19 tests and test instruments to provinces, territories, and any body or person in Canada. Payments can cover costs incurred on or after January 1, 2022. Transfers can include tests the federal government acquired on or after April 1, 2021 (Payments out of C.R.F.; Transfers). - Authorizes up to $2.5 billion for COVID-19 test-related expenses (Payments out of C.R.F.). - Allows transfers of tests and test instruments to provinces, territories, and any body or person (Transfers). - Covers expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022; transfer authority applies to items acquired on or after April 1, 2021. - Sets no rules on who gets tests first, pricing, reporting, or timelines; these are left to the Minister’s discretion (Bill text). ## What it means for you - Households - You may see more COVID-19 tests available if your province, school, pharmacy, or community group receives federal test kits. The bill allows these transfers but does not require free distribution or set eligibility (Transfers). - Workers - Your employer or workplace could receive test kits from federal transfers and offer testing. The bill permits transfers to any body or person but does not mandate workplace programs (Transfers). - Businesses and Non-profits - You could receive test kits directly from the federal stock if the Minister chooses. The bill sets no application process, criteria, or price rules (Transfers). - Health providers and facilities - Hospitals, clinics, labs, and long-term care homes can receive tests and instruments used for testing. This could support screening capacity, subject to federal allocation decisions (Transfers). - Provinces, territories, and municipalities - You can receive federally acquired tests and instruments for distribution or use in public programs (Transfers). - The Minister may make payments for COVID-19 test expenses incurred on or after January 1, 2022. The bill does not specify recipients or cost-sharing terms (Payments out of C.R.F.). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $2.5 billion maximum (one-time authority; timing tied to expenses incurred on/after January 1, 2022). - No fiscal note published in the bill. Key figures from the text: Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Payments authority for COVID-19 tests | CAD $2.5 billion (cap) | One-time cap; for expenses incurred on/after January 1, 2022 | Payments out of C.R.F. Authority to transfer tests/instruments | $0 specified | Ongoing authority to transfer items acquired on/after April 1, 2021 | Transfers - Administrative costs, unit prices, and distribution costs: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Ensures funding is available to secure a large supply of tests during surges, up to $2.5 billion, without needing another bill (Payments out of C.R.F.). - Speeds delivery by allowing direct transfers to provinces, territories, and other recipients, reducing bottlenecks (Transfers). - Allows reimbursement or coverage of eligible costs incurred since January 1, 2022, which can stabilize provincial and partner budgets (Payments out of C.R.F.). - Provides flexibility to send tests and instruments where they are most needed, including to specific facilities or communities (Transfers). - Keeps scope narrow and time-linked to the pandemic testing need by limiting the authority to COVID-19 tests and related instruments (Bill text). Assumptions to note: - Assumes demand for tests remains high and supply can be procured at needed volumes and prices (not specified in the bill). - Assumes provinces and other recipients can distribute tests effectively (not addressed in the bill). ## Opponents' View - Limited accountability: the bill sets no reporting, allocation criteria, or oversight requirements for how tests or funds are distributed (Bill text). - Broad discretion: transfers may go to “any body or person,” with no priority rules for high-risk or low-income groups (Transfers). - Budget uncertainty: $2.5 billion may be too little or too much relative to actual demand; the bill provides no usage forecast or unit cost data (Payments out of C.R.F.). - Unclear recipient payments: the bill authorizes payments for expenses but does not specify who receives funds, under what agreements, or at what reimbursement rates (Payments out of C.R.F.). - Coordination risk: the bill does not address how federal transfers align with provincial procurement, which could create overlap or uneven distribution (Bill text).

Seniors' benefits ignore COVID relief payments

## Summary This bill changes how the federal government counts income when it sets Old Age Security top-ups for low‑income seniors. It excludes specific COVID‑19 emergency benefits from the income used to calculate the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and the Allowance for months after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1 adding OAS Act s.2(c.1)). The goal is to prevent these temporary benefits from lowering seniors’ GIS or Allowance. - Excludes payments under the CERB, certain EI emergency benefits (Part VIII.4), the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, and the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act from GIS/Allowance income for months after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1). - Applies to GIS (for low‑income seniors 65+) and the Allowance/Allowance for the Survivor (for low‑income spouses or survivors aged 60–64) (OAS Act). - Prevents GIS/Allowance reductions that would have happened because these COVID‑19 benefits were counted as income. - Does not change income tax rules; the change applies only to the OAS/GIS program’s income definition (Bill, s. 1). - Does not provide retroactive relief for months before July 2022 (Bill, s. 1). ## What it means for you - Households (low‑income seniors 65+ receiving GIS) - Starting with payments for July 2022 and later, Service Canada will ignore amounts you received from the listed COVID‑19 benefit programs when calculating your GIS. Your GIS may be higher than it would have been under prior rules (Bill, s. 1). - You do not need to apply for this exclusion; it is built into the calculation of GIS after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1). - Spouses/partners and survivors aged 60–64 (receiving the Allowance or Allowance for the Survivor) - The same exclusion applies. Listed COVID‑19 benefits will not count as income in setting your Allowance for months after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1). - New GIS/Allowance applicants after June 2022 - If your prior‑year income included these COVID‑19 benefits, they will be deducted from the income used to assess your eligibility and payment amount for months after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1). - Seniors who did not receive these COVID‑19 benefits - No change to how your income is assessed for GIS/Allowance. - All recipients - Tax reporting does not change. These benefits may still be taxable for income tax, but the change here is only for GIS/Allowance calculations under the Old Age Security Act (Bill, s. 1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill requires the government to ignore specific COVID‑19 benefits when calculating GIS/Allowance after June 2022, which increases statutory spending on OAS top‑ups relative to prior rules. No fiscal note or official cost estimate is included in the bill text (Bill, preamble; s. 1). - Explicit appropriations in dollars are not stated. Total cost depends on how many GIS/Allowance recipients received the listed COVID‑19 benefits and the amounts involved. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Protects low‑income seniors from unintended benefit cuts by ensuring temporary COVID‑19 benefits do not reduce GIS/Allowance after June 2022 (Bill, s. 1). - Provides a clear rule across Canada by listing the exact programs to be excluded, reducing confusion for recipients (Bill, s. 1). - Targets relief to seniors and near‑seniors by applying only within the Old Age Security system (GIS and Allowances), limiting scope and exposure (Bill, s. 1). - Prospective application avoids repeated one‑off fixes and gives income stability for benefit months July 2022 onward (Bill, s. 1). ## Opponents' View - Increases program spending without a published cap or estimate; Parliament is asked to approve a change with no official cost figure in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Creates unequal treatment: employment or other taxable income still reduces GIS, but listed COVID‑19 benefits do not, raising fairness concerns among seniors with similar total incomes but different sources (Bill, s. 1). - Sets a precedent for excluding other income types from means tests, which could invite future carve‑outs and add complexity (Bill, s. 1). - Provides no retroactive relief within this bill for months before July 2022, leaving earlier reductions to be addressed separately, if at all (Bill, s. 1).

Targeted COVID Aid for Workers and Businesses

## Summary This bill extends and targets federal COVID-19 supports for workers and businesses. It continues wage and rent subsidies for select sectors through May 7, 2022, with an option to extend to July 2, 2022. It creates a new benefit for workers in regions under a COVID-19 lockdown, extends sickness and caregiving benefits, orders an Auditor General audit, and adds job-protected COVID-19 leave to the Canada Labour Code. - Wage and rent subsidies continue for tourism/hospitality, the hardest-hit firms, and businesses under health restrictions (Part 1; Income Tax Act s.125.7). - New Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit pays $300/week during designated lockdowns (Part 2, Amount of payment). - Sickness benefit weeks rise from 4 to 6; caregiving weeks rise from 42 to 44; both extended to May 7, 2022 (Part 3, ss.10,16,17,23). - Auditor General must audit key COVID-19 benefits and overpayments (Part 3.1). - New job-protected leave for COVID-19 illness/isolation (up to 6 weeks) and caregiving (up to 44 weeks) under the Canada Labour Code (Part 4, s.239.01). ## What it means for you - Households and workers - New lockdown support: If your region is designated as under a COVID-19 lockdown for at least 14 days, you may get $300/week if you lost your job, cannot work self-employed, or had a 50% income drop for reasons tied to the lockdown (Part 2, Eligibility; Designation of region; Amount of payment). - Who qualifies: Age 15+, resident and present in Canada, with at least $5,000 in work-related income in the prior year or last 12 months; must file tax returns on time; cannot also receive EI, CRSB, CRCB, or provincial parental benefits for the same week (Part 2, Eligibility). - Limits: You are not eligible if your job or income loss is because you refused a COVID-19 vaccination requirement (Part 2, ss. (3), (4)). Travel quarantine after entering Canada generally disqualifies you, unless specific medical exceptions apply (Part 2, Eligibility (i)). - Application: Apply within 60 days after the week; you must attest to eligibility and may have to provide information; overpayments must be repaid; penalties apply for knowing false claims (Part 2, Application; Attestation; Provision of information; Return of erroneous payment; Violations). - CRSB and CRCB: You may claim up to 6 weeks of sickness benefit and up to 44 weeks of caregiving benefit, for weeks up to May 7, 2022; eligibility windows can be extended by regulation to July 2, 2022 (Part 3, ss.10–11,16–19,23–24.1). - Businesses and non-profits - Targeted wage and rent help: Support continues for periods through May 7, 2022, focused on: - Tourism and hospitality entities (hotels, restaurants, travel, arts/culture, recreation, events, and related listed activities) with at least a 40% current-month revenue drop and a 12‑month average drop of at least 40% (Income Tax Regulations s.8901.1(2); Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “prior year revenue decline”). - Hardest-hit entities with a 12‑month average revenue drop ≥50% and a current-month drop ≥50% (Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “base percentage” (l)(ii), (m)(ii)). - Entities under a qualifying public health restriction for ≥7 days affecting ≥25% of revenues (Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “qualifying public health restriction”). - Subsidy rates and caps: - For Nov 21, 2021–Mar 12, 2022, base wage/rent subsidy rates can reach up to 75% for eligible tourism/hospitality or restricted entities; up to 50% for hardest-hit entities (Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “base percentage” (l)). - For Mar 13–May 7, 2022, maximum base rates drop by half (up to 37.5% and 25%) (s.125.7(1) “base percentage” (m)). - Rent subsidy per-location cap increases to $1,000,000 for periods after Oct 23, 2021 (s.125.7(2.1) D: E.1= $1,000,000 for periods 22+). - A 25% rent “top-up” for public-health restrictions continues through May 7, 2022 (s.125.7(1) “rent top-up percentage”). - Conditions for public companies: No subsidy if taxable dividends to common shareholders are paid in the claim period; executive pay clawback applies if executive compensation rises above 2019/2021 baselines (Income Tax Act s.125.7(2.01); s.125.7(14), (14.1)). - Administration: Government may extend periods by regulation but not past July 2, 2022 (s.125.7(1)(d); Part 1; Part 2 “Replacement of May 7, 2022”). - Federally regulated employees - Job-protected leave: Up to 6 weeks if you have COVID-19, are at higher risk, or must isolate on advice; up to 44 weeks to care for a child under 12 or a family member needing supervised care for COVID‑19 reasons (Part 4, s.239.01(1)). - Household limit: Only one household member can take caregiving leave at a time; total caregiving leave per household capped at 44 weeks (Part 4, s.239.01(5), (8)). - Benefits: Seniority, pension, health, and disability benefits continue during leave, with normal employee and employer contributions, unless the employee opts out of contributions (Part 4, s.239.01(15)–(18)). - Vacations: You can interrupt or postpone vacation to take COVID-19 leave (Part 4, ss.187.1, 187.2). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note is included in the bill text. The bill authorizes payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to administer and pay benefits until March 31, 2026 (Part 2, Consolidated Revenue Fund; Part 3, s.41). - Program parameters with fiscal impact: - Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit: $300 per eligible week per person (Part 2, Amount of payment). - Wage and rent subsidies: Targeted rates up to 75% (then 37.5%) for tourism/hospitality or restricted entities, and up to 50% (then 25%) for hardest-hit entities through May 7, 2022 (Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “base percentage” (l), (m)). - Rent subsidy per-location cap: $1,000,000 for periods after Oct 23, 2021 (Income Tax Act s.125.7(2.1) D: E.1). - CRSB/CRCB weeks increased to 6 and 44, respectively, and extended to May 7, 2022 (Part 3, ss.16, 23). - Aggregate federal cost or savings: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Targets help where need is highest: Focus on tourism/hospitality, the hardest-hit, and businesses under public health restrictions directs limited funds to those with large, sustained revenue losses (Income Tax Act s.125.7(1) “base percentage” (l), (m); Regulations s.8901.1(2)). - Maintains jobs and businesses: Continuing wage and rent supports through May 7, 2022 helps employers keep staff and cover fixed costs during winter waves (Part 1; Income Tax Act s.125.7). - Quick worker relief during lockdowns: $300/week gives workers a simple safety net when local lockdowns occur, with clear rules and a 60‑day application window (Part 2, Eligibility; Application; Amount of payment). - Stronger safeguards: Dividend prohibitions and executive pay clawbacks prevent public companies from using subsidies while rewarding shareholders or boosting executive pay (Income Tax Act s.125.7(2.01), (14), (14.1)). - Oversight and learning: Auditor General audit of major benefits and overpayments promotes accountability and program improvement (Part 3.1). - Supports public health: Extra CRSB/CRCB weeks and job-protected leave make it easier to isolate, seek care, or look after children or family members, reducing workplace spread (Part 3; Part 4, s.239.01). ## Opponents' View - Complexity and red tape: Detailed revenue tests, sector lists, and changing rates may burden small firms and create confusion, leading to uneven access (Income Tax Act s.125.7; Regulations s.8901.1(2)). - Risk of gaps and exclusions: Sector-based eligibility may miss businesses hurt by the pandemic but not on the tourism/hospitality list; caregiving leave is capped per household, which may constrain larger families (Regulations s.8901.1(2); Part 4, s.239.01(5), (8)). - Uncertain and potentially high cost: Total fiscal impact depends on the scale and length of lockdowns and revenue declines; no aggregate cost is provided in the bill (Expenses: Data unavailable). - Enforcement and hardship concerns: Overpayments become debts; the government can garnish bank accounts or wages, which may strain low-income recipients who made errors (Part 2, Return of erroneous payment; Garnishment). - Work incentive debate: Some argue $300/week could discourage a return to work at the margin; others note eligibility requires a 50% income loss and excludes those who quit without reason (Part 2, Eligibility (f), (h)). - Dividend and executive pay limits may deter uptake: Public companies may forgo aid to preserve dividends, possibly affecting workers at those firms (Income Tax Act s.125.7(2.01), (14.1)).

Protect Clinics and Add Paid Sick Days

## Summary This bill changes the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code. It creates new crimes for intimidating health workers or blocking access to health care. It also expands bereavement leave for the death of a child or a stillbirth and gives many workers up to 10 paid sick days each year. - Creates new offences for intimidation around health services and for blocking access to health-care sites, with penalties up to 10 years in prison (Criminal Code s.423.2(1)–(3)). - Protects peaceful information-sharing near clinics by adding a narrow defence for attending only to obtain or communicate information (s.423.2(4)). - Requires judges to treat crimes against health workers or crimes that impede access to care as aggravating at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(iii.2), (vii)). - Gives employees covered by the Canada Labour Code up to 10 paid medical leave days per year, with accrual rules, carry-forward, and doctor’s note rules (Canada Labour Code s.239(1.2)–(1.6)). - Extends bereavement leave to up to 8 weeks for the death of a child or a stillbirth, with defined time windows (s.210(1.01)–(1.03)). - Repeals the “personal leave” option specifically for illness or injury, replacing it with the new paid medical leave (s.206.6(1)(a) repealed). ## What it means for you - Households and patients - People cannot legally block your way into a hospital, clinic, or other place that provides health services (s.423.2(2)). - People cannot legally try to scare you away from getting care (s.423.2(1)(a)). - Peaceful attendance to share or obtain information remains allowed if it does not block access or intimidate (s.423.2(4)). - Courts can give tougher sentences when crimes target health workers or stop access to care (s.718.2(a)(iii.2), (vii)). - Health professionals and those who assist them - You are protected from intimidation meant to impede your work, with penalties up to 10 years (s.423.2(1)(b)–(c), (3)). - The new offence is added to investigation and bail provisions, which can affect release conditions and investigative tools with court approval (s.183; s.487.04(c); s.515(4.1), (4.3)). - Workers covered by the Canada Labour Code (federally regulated workplaces) - You can earn up to 10 paid medical leave days per calendar year (s.239(1.2)). - Accrual: after 30 days with your employer, you get 3 paid days; after 60 days, you earn 1 day at the start of each month, up to 10 (s.239(1.2)(a)–(b)). In later years, you earn 1 day per month, up to 10 (s.239(1.2)(c)). - Unused paid days carry forward to January 1 and reduce how many new days you can earn that year (s.239(1.4)). - Paid days are paid at your regular wage for your normal hours (s.239(1.3)). - Your employer may require a doctor’s note only if you take 5 or more consecutive paid days, and they must ask within 15 days after you return (s.239(1.6)). For unpaid medical leave of 3+ days, a note may also be required (s.239(2)). - Employers may require that each leave period be at least one full day (s.239(1.5)). - The old personal leave specifically for illness or injury is repealed; illness is now covered under medical leave with pay (s.206.6(1)(a) repealed; s.239). - Parents who lose a child or experience a stillbirth - You can take up to 8 weeks of job-protected leave for the death of your child (under 18 or a person for whom you receive the Canada caregiver credit) (s.210(1.01), (1.03)). - You can take up to 8 weeks of job-protected leave for a stillbirth, if you, your spouse/partner experienced it, or you would have been a parent of the child (s.210(1.02), (1.03)). - These leaves must be taken within set windows after the death or stillbirth and related services (s.210(1.01), (1.02)). - Employers covered by the Canada Labour Code - You must track and pay up to 10 days of medical leave per employee per year as they accrue (s.239(1.2)–(1.4)). - Paid leave counts as wages for all purposes (s.239(1.3)). - You may set a minimum leave increment of one day and may request certificates as allowed (s.239(1.5)–(2)). - Cabinet may make regulations defining terms or modifying how paid medical leave applies to certain classes of employees to reflect work practices, while keeping substantially equivalent accrual (s.239(13)). - Timing - Some parts take effect 30 days after Royal Assent; others start on dates set by Cabinet by order (Coming into Force (1)–(3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Federal budget appropriations: No explicit appropriations in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Enforcement and justice system costs from new Criminal Code offences: Data unavailable. - Employer wage costs for paid medical leave (up to 10 days/employee/year) fall on federally regulated employers, not the federal treasury (s.239(1.3)). Data unavailable. - Regulatory development and administration (to define terms or modify application by class): Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Protects access to health care and worker safety by criminalizing intimidation and obstruction near health services (s.423.2(1)–(2)). - Provides strong deterrence with penalties up to 10 years for serious cases (s.423.2(3)). - Preserves peaceful expression by allowing attendance to obtain or share information, so long as it does not block access or intimidate (s.423.2(4)). - Supports public health and income security by guaranteeing up to 10 paid medical leave days per year, so workers can stay home when ill without losing pay (s.239(1.2)–(1.4)). - Recognizes the impact of crimes against health workers and those that block care by making them aggravating factors at sentencing (s.718.2(a)(iii.2), (vii)). - Gives grieving parents more time off work after the death of a child or a stillbirth, aligning leave with the gravity of these events (s.210(1.01)–(1.03)). ## Opponents' View - Free-expression risk: the phrase “intent to provoke a state of fear” may be hard to assess, which could chill lawful protest even with the defence for information-sharing (s.423.2(1), (4)). Assumes enforcement will err on the side of restriction. - Penalty proportionality: maximum 10-year penalty may be seen as too harsh for some obstruction incidents (s.423.2(3)). Assumes prosecutors will seek severe penalties beyond serious cases. - Employer burden: paying for up to 10 sick days adds wage and administrative costs, especially for smaller firms in federally regulated sectors (s.239(1.2)–(1.5)). Data on total cost is unavailable. - Accrual gap for new hires: workers get no paid days until 30 days of service, which could leave very new employees without paid coverage for short illnesses (s.239(1.2)(a)–(b)). Assumes other leave options are insufficient. - Flexibility concern: Cabinet can modify how paid medical leave applies to classes of employees, which could weaken benefits for some groups through regulation (s.239(13)(b)). Assumes future regulations will narrow coverage.

Supplementary Budget Funds Services and Programs

## Summary This federal supply bill authorizes the government to spend up to CAD $8,749,898,306 for 2021–22 to cover program needs not funded in earlier budgets. It implements Supplementary Estimates (B), which are mid-year budget updates for departments and agencies. Items are effective as of April 1, 2021, the start of the fiscal year (Bill: Effective date; Schedule). - Total new authority: $8,749,898,306 for 2021–22 (Schedule). - Large top-ups for Indigenous Services ($2.071 billion) and Crown–Indigenous Relations ($1.011 billion) (Schedule). - Central funding for government-wide compensation and initiatives through Treasury Board ($1.594 billion) (Schedule). - Added funds for Global Affairs ($683.5 million), National Defence ($644.4 million), and Immigration ($334.1 million) (Schedule). - Some items allow loans or share purchases at international institutions, stated in US dollars (Schedule: Finance L25b; Foreign Affairs L25b). - Departments can record accounting adjustments after year-end until the Public Accounts are tabled (Bill: Adjustments in accounts). ## What it means for you - Households - Federal services funded by these departments continue or expand in 2021–22. Examples include health regulation ($179.9 million), parks and heritage services ($129.4 million Parks; $177.5 million Canadian Heritage), and veterans’ services ($19.2 million) (Schedule). - International aid and development funding ($681.0 million) may support humanitarian responses abroad (Schedule: Foreign Affairs Vote 10b). - Timing: All items take effect as of April 1, 2021, within the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (Bill: Effective date). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Significant additional funding flows through Indigenous Services ($2,071,471,146) and Crown–Indigenous Relations ($1,010,699,124), including contributions that can be provided as money, goods, or services (Schedule: Indigenous Services Votes 1b/5b/10b; Crown–Indigenous Relations Votes 1b/10b). - Workers and public servants - Treasury Board receives $1,499,034,014 for compensation adjustments and $82,437,110 for government‑wide initiatives (Schedule: TBS Votes 15b and 10b). - This supports costs tied to updated terms and conditions of employment across the federal public service (Schedule: TBS Vote 15b). - Businesses and sectors - Tourism promotion receives $25,000,000 via Destination Canada (Schedule: Canadian Tourism Commission 1b). - Fisheries, forestry, and natural resources receive new operating, capital, and contribution funding (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans $207,060,746; Natural Resources $69,506,206) (Schedule). - Pacific region economic development gets $155,505,130 (Schedule: Pacific Economic Development Agency). - Students and researchers - Research councils receive added grants (CIHR $15,000,000; NSERC $22,000,000; SSHRC $1,920,000), plus NRC contributions ($103,500,000, including the Thirty Meter Telescope) (Schedule). - Local and provincial governments - Infrastructure Canada gets $94,258,287 (operations and capital) that can support federal infrastructure programs (Schedule). - Environment and Fisheries votes allow contributions to provinces and municipalities for specific projects (Schedule: Environment Vote 5b; Fisheries Vote 5b). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $8,749,898,306 for FY2021–22. Key voted amounts in Supplementary Estimates (B) authorized by this Act (selected): Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | ---:| --- | --- Indigenous Services | $2,071,471,146 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b/10b) Treasury Board Secretariat (incl. compensation) | $1,593,502,834 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/10b/15b) Crown–Indigenous Relations | $1,010,699,124 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/10b) Global Affairs (Foreign Affairs) | $683,483,050 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/10b/L25b) National Defence | $644,354,106 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b/10b) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship | $334,137,202 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b/10b) Correctional Service of Canada | $217,000,711 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Vote 1b) Fisheries and Oceans | $207,060,746 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b/10b) Health | $179,917,967 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/10b) Canadian Heritage | $177,482,602 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b) PacifiCan (Pacific Economic Dev.) | $155,505,130 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b) Environment and Climate Change | $130,023,372 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule (Votes 1b/5b/10b) All other departments and agencies | $642,984,686 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule Total | $8,749,898,306 | One-time in 2021–22 | Schedule Additional authorities (non-budgetary caps stated in US$): - Finance: Loans to the International Development Association up to US$287,710,000 in 2021–22 (Schedule: Finance L25b). - Foreign Affairs: Purchase of shares in international financial institutions up to US$113,260,814 in 2021–22 (estimated CAD $147,602,231) (Schedule: Foreign Affairs L25b). Accounting/timing provisions: - Items take effect April 1, 2021 (Bill: Effective date). - Departments may record year-end accounting adjustments before the Public Accounts are tabled, without further cash payments (Bill: Adjustments in accounts). ## Proponents' View - Keeps programs funded mid-year. This Act provides legal authority to spend on items “not otherwise provided for” in the Main Estimates, based on Supplementary Estimates (B) (Preamble; Schedule). - Major support for Indigenous services and agreements. About $3.08 billion combined goes to Indigenous Services and Crown–Indigenous Relations (Schedule). - Provides resources for international aid and security. $681,000,000 in contributions for humanitarian assistance, international security, development, and peace (Schedule: Foreign Affairs Vote 10b). - Maintains core public services. Added funding for Defence ($644.4 million), Corrections ($217.0 million), Health ($179.9 million), and Parks ($129.4 million) supports ongoing operations (Schedule). - Implements negotiated compensation. $1,499,034,014 for government‑wide compensation adjustments enables departments to meet updated employment terms (Schedule: TBS Vote 15b). - Supports economic recovery efforts. Funding for tourism ($25,000,000), regional development in the Pacific ($155,505,130), and research councils (over $38,920,000 combined) can aid jobs and growth (Schedule). ## Opponents' View - Limited line‑by‑line transparency. Many entries read “The grants listed in any of the Estimates,” which requires cross‑referencing detailed Estimates and may obscure specific recipients (Schedule). - Large central votes reduce precision. Treasury Board’s Government‑wide Initiatives ($82,437,110) and Compensation Adjustments ($1,499,034,014) are broad envelopes with few program details at the vote level (Schedule: TBS Votes 10b and 15b). - Retroactive effect and transfers. Items are deemed effective April 1, 2021, and transfers of appropriations are deemed authorized as of that date, which can lessen ex‑ante parliamentary scrutiny (Bill: Effective date; Transfers of appropriations). - Post‑year‑end accounting adjustments. The Act allows charging appropriations after year‑end before tabling the Public Accounts, which can complicate public tracking within the fiscal year (Bill: Adjustments in accounts). - Exposure from non‑budgetary authorities. Caps for loans and share purchases at international financial institutions are set in US dollars (Finance L25b; Foreign Affairs L25b), which introduces currency and repayment risks (Schedule). - Delivery risk within a short window. Because these are in‑year top‑ups for 2021–22, there is a risk that some departments may not fully deploy funds by March 31, 2022, leading to lapses or reprofiling (Schedule; timing clauses).

Approves $21.6B for Federal Services

## Summary This bill, Appropriation Act No. 4, 2024–25, authorizes CAD $21,632,370,126 for federal departments, agencies, and Crown corporations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, based on Supplementary Estimates (B), 2024–25 (Preamble; Schedules 1–2). It allows payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and sets timing rules for when amounts can be charged and when they lapse. All items take effect as of April 1, 2024 (Effective date (2)). - Funds cover operating, capital, and grants/contributions across many entities, including Indigenous Services, National Defence, Veterans Affairs, Immigration, Public Safety, and VIA Rail (Schedule 1). - A small set of items can be spent through March 31, 2026, then lapse if unused (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Some votes authorize the government to purchase capital in international financial institutions in USD and EUR within set limits (Department of Finance L10b, L15b). - No tax changes are included in the bill text. - Transfers of appropriations in the Estimates are deemed authorized as of April 1, 2024 (Transfers of appropriations). ## What it means for you - Households and service users - Continued funding for health programs and contributions through Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2024–25 (Health: $428,333,736; PHAC: $81,425,890) (Schedule 1). - Housing-related support via Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reimbursements and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities (CMHC: $742,513,960; Housing Dept.: $201,367,503) (Schedule 1). - Immigration and settlement services funded through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada contributions and operations ($1,222,173,237) (Schedule 1). - Veterans’ programs and benefits funded through Veterans Affairs ($952,695,590) (Schedule 1). - Passenger rail and ferry services supported via VIA Rail and Marine Atlantic (VIA Rail: $825,740,402; Marine Atlantic: $35,962,795) (Schedule 1). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Large funding for services, infrastructure, and contributions via Indigenous Services Canada ($4,463,320,533) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($1,385,445,915) in 2024–25 (Schedule 1). - Travelers and commuters - Ongoing support for VIA Rail and Marine Atlantic operations, capital, and services (VIA Rail: $825,740,402; Marine Atlantic: $35,962,795) (Schedule 1). - Funding for the Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority ($256,365,548) (Schedule 1). - Border services and enforcement receive additional funds, some available through March 31, 2026 (CBSA: $33,939,607) (Schedule 2). - Businesses and non‑profits - Regional development agencies receive operating and contribution funding (e.g., ACOA: $7,634,421; PacifiCan: $17,060,873; FedDev Ontario: $27,283,207; FedNor: $10,220,032; Western Economic Diversification: $32,139,242; Quebec Economic Development: $18,381,948) (Schedule 1). - Departments with industry programs receive contributions (e.g., Industry/Innovation, Science and Economic Development: $251,692,966) (Schedule 1). - Local and provincial governments - Departments have authority to make contributions toward construction and other works involving provinces and municipalities (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans capital; Environment capital; Transport capital) (Schedule 1). - Federal employees and contractors - Central votes fund compensation adjustments and public service insurance ($970,804,972 and $643,626,442) (Treasury Board Secretariat Votes 15b and 20b) (Schedule 1). - Departments can charge some adjustments after year‑end when no cash payment is needed, to finalize accounts (Adjustments in accounts of Canada; Schedules 1–2). - Select items can be spent into 2025–26 and must be charged in order against the earliest appropriation (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $21,632,370,126 in FY2024–25 (Schedules 1–2). - Total voted amounts: $21,353,050,122 (Schedule 1) and $279,320,004 (Schedule 2), together $21,632,370,126. - Effective date for all items: April 1, 2024 (Effective date (2)). - Select Schedule 2 items may be spent until March 31, 2026; remaining balances then lapse (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | ---:| --- | --- Indigenous Services Canada (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b) | $4,463,320,533 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 National Defence (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b) | $3,300,480,093 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs (Votes 1b, 10b) | $1,385,445,915 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (central votes incl. compensation and insurance) | $1,654,545,508 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b) | $1,222,173,237 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Public Works and Government Services (Votes 1b, 5b) | $841,144,336 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Votes 1b, 5b) | $889,922,026 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 VIA Rail Canada Inc. (Vote 1b) | $825,740,402 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Vote 1b) | $742,513,960 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b) | $555,105,071 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Fisheries and Oceans (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b) | $531,141,438 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Health Canada (Votes 1b, 5b, 10b) | $428,333,736 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Canadian Space Agency (Votes 1b, 5b) | $258,708,060 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority (Vote 1b) | $256,365,548 | FY2024–25 | Schedule 1 Canada Revenue Agency (Vote 1b) | $245,380,397 | FY2024–26 (Schedule 2) | Schedule 2 Canada Border Services Agency (Votes 1b, 5b) | $33,939,607 | FY2024–26 (Schedule 2) | Schedule 2 Other authorities: - Department of Finance: authority to purchase shares in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development up to EUR €137,150,000 over 2025–26 to 2029–30 (L10b) and to purchase hybrid capital in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development up to USD $200,000,000 in 2024–25 (L15b) (Schedule 1). - Many votes include authority to “expend revenues to offset expenditures” under the Financial Administration Act; net impact by department: Data unavailable (various votes, Schedule 1–2). ## Proponents' View - Ensures core services and transfers continue through March 31, 2025, across health, housing, immigration, transport, public safety, and Indigenous services, with specific voted amounts in Schedule 1 (Schedule 1). - Targets urgent operational and capital needs, such as National Defence capital ($1,747,202,986) and Public Works capital ($619,865,441), reducing risks to readiness and federal assets (Schedule 1). - Supports mobility and trade by funding VIA Rail ($825,740,402), Marine Atlantic ($35,962,795), and the Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority ($256,365,548) (Schedule 1). - Provides major support for Indigenous communities through Indigenous Services ($4,463,320,533) and Crown‑Indigenous Relations ($1,385,445,915) to deliver programs and contributions (Schedule 1). - Includes central funding to honor collective agreements and employee benefits, improving workforce stability (TBS Compensation Adjustments: $970,804,972; Public Service Insurance: $643,626,442) (Schedule 1). - Allows certain items to be spent into 2025–26 (CBSA; CRA), adding flexibility to finish projects and avoid lapses (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). ## Opponents' View - The bill bundles many large sums under generic “grants and contributions” without project‑level detail, limiting transparency for Parliament and the public (numerous “The grants listed in any of the Estimates” items, Schedule 1). - Multi‑year charging and order‑of‑payment rules for Schedule 2 can defer spending and accountability into the next year, making tracking harder (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Significant capital votes risk lapses or delays if procurement or delivery slips (e.g., National Defence capital $1,747,202,986; Public Works capital $619,865,441; Canadian Space Agency capital $244,474,720) (Schedule 1). - Central votes concentrate funds at the Treasury Board Secretariat ($1,654,545,508), which may reduce line‑by‑line scrutiny compared to department‑specific appropriations (Schedule 1). - Authorities to purchase capital in international financial institutions commit sizable foreign‑currency sums (EUR €137,150,000; USD $200,000,000) with limited detail in the bill on expected returns or timing (Department of Finance L10b, L15b; Schedule 1). - Many votes permit departments to “expend revenues to offset expenditures,” which can obscure net program costs without detailed reporting; net offsets by entity are not stated here (various votes, Schedule 1–2).

Kids' Unhealthy Food Ads Banned

## Summary This bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to restrict advertising of certain foods to young children. It bans advertising of prescribed foods that exceed set levels of sugars, saturated fat, or sodium when the ad is primarily directed at children under 13. Details (which foods, ad formats, and thresholds) will be set later by regulation. The law also protects trademarks if companies stop using child‑directed branding to comply, and requires a review within 5 years of coming into force. - Bans child‑directed ads for “prescribed” foods above set sugar, saturated fat, or sodium limits (new Food and Drugs Act s.7.1). - Government will define what counts as “primarily directed at” under‑13 audiences and may limit which ad formats are covered (s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.2)). - Government will define “sugars” and “saturated fat” for this purpose (s.30(1)(e.3)). - Trademarks are protected from loss or non‑use claims due to compliance (s.7.2). - A parliamentary committee must review the law within 5 years, with a focus on any shift of marketing to ages 13–17 (Review clause). - Takes effect on a date set by the Governor in Council; no date in the bill (Coming-into-force). ## What it means for you - Households - Ads that are primarily aimed at children under 13 for covered foods will be prohibited once the law and regulations take effect (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.3)). Start date: to be set by the Governor in Council (Coming-into-force). - The bill does not change what foods can be sold or their prices. It addresses marketing only (s.7.1). - Children and teens - Children under 13: Reduced exposure to marketing of foods that exceed set limits for sugars, saturated fat, or sodium, in media or settings primarily directed at them (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)). - Ages 13–17: Not directly covered. Parliament must review within 5 years to see if marketing shifts to this age group (Review clause). - Food and beverage companies and restaurants - You will need to stop advertising covered foods in ways primarily directed at under‑13 audiences once in force (s.7.1). - What counts as “primarily directed at” and which ad formats are in scope will be defined by regulation; government may limit the forms of advertising covered (s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.2)). - If you remove child‑directed branding or uses to comply, your trademarks will not be penalized for non‑use; non‑use due to compliance counts as “special circumstances” (s.7.2). - Compliance date is not set yet; it begins on the date fixed by the Governor in Council (Coming-into-force). - Advertisers, media, and platforms - You will need to avoid placing covered food ads in content or venues primarily directed at children under 13, once regulations define the tests and the law is in force (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)). - The government may limit which advertising forms the ban applies to (e.g., specific media types), to be set by regulation (s.30(1)(e.2)). The bill’s preamble signals intent to address digital, online content, and endorsements broadly (Preamble). - Retailers and sponsors - In‑store, event, or sponsorship promotions that are primarily directed at under‑13 audiences may be restricted if included by regulation (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.2)). - Plan for changes to kid‑focused displays, characters, or promotions once regulations are published and the law takes effect. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No direct appropriations are included in the bill (Bill text). - No taxes or fees are created by the bill (Bill text). - Government costs to develop regulations, monitor, and enforce are not provided. Data unavailable. - Business compliance costs (e.g., changing ads, packaging, placements) are not provided. Data unavailable. Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Direct appropriations in bill | CAD $0 | One-time | Bill text (no appropriations) Regulatory development and enforcement | Data unavailable | Ongoing | Data unavailable Parliamentary review within 5 years | Data unavailable | One-time | Review clause Business compliance and advertising adjustments | Data unavailable | One-time and ongoing | Data unavailable ## Proponents' View - Reduces children’s exposure to marketing of foods high in sugars, saturated fat, or sodium, which the bill’s preamble links to negative health outcomes and cites as having “unequivocal evidence” of impact per the WHO Commission (Preamble). - Moves beyond voluntary industry codes, which the preamble says have not stopped widespread marketing to children (Preamble). - Designed to cover modern marketing channels, including online and endorsements, reflecting how advertising now reaches children (Preamble; s.30(1)(e.2)). - Provides trademark certainty so businesses are not punished for complying (s.7.2). - Builds in accountability through a mandatory 5‑year review, with a focus on displacement to ages 13–17 (Review clause). - Allows clear regulatory tests for when an ad is “primarily directed at” under‑13 audiences (s.30(1)(e.1)). ## Opponents' View - Key details are deferred to regulations (what foods are “prescribed,” thresholds, media covered), creating uncertainty and possible overreach until rules are published (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.3)). - Compliance could affect revenue for broadcasters, platforms, sponsors, and agencies that sell child‑directed ads; costs are not estimated (Data unavailable). - Enforcing a standard based on whether an ad is “primarily directed at” under‑13 audiences can be complex, especially online and across borders (s.7.1; s.30(1)(e.1)). - Marketing may shift to target teens 13–17 rather than decline overall; the bill anticipates this risk and calls for review, implying displacement is a concern (Review clause). - Depending on how regulations define covered formats, general‑audience advertising that reaches mixed ages could be chilled to avoid risk (s.30(1)(e.1)-(e.2)). Assumption: depends on regulatory thresholds and tests. - The option to “limit the forms of advertising” covered may lead to uneven rules across media and disputes over what is in scope (s.30(1)(e.2)).

More Time to Report Workplace Harassment

## Summary This bill changes the Canada Labour Code to extend how long former employees have to file a workplace harassment and violence complaint. It also keeps certain employer duties in place for a period after a worker leaves. The changes apply only to federally regulated workplaces. - Former employees can file a complaint up to the later of 2 years after leaving the job or 2 years after the harassment/violence resolution process ends, if a notice was filed under federal regulations (Canada Labour Code s.127.1(12.1)). - Employers must meet specified duties toward former employees for incidents that become known to the employer within 2 years after the worker leaves, unless regulations say otherwise (s.125(4)). - The complaint process applies to former employees as if they were current employees, to resolve the complaint (s.127.1(12)). - The bill covers only harassment and violence occurrences, not other types of labour complaints. - Applies to federally regulated sectors (e.g., banks, interprovincial transport, telecom, federal public service). ## What it means for you - Households - No direct effect unless a family member works in a federally regulated workplace and is dealing with a harassment or violence issue. The time to file a complaint after leaving that job is extended (s.127.1(12.1)). - Workers (current and former) in federally regulated workplaces - If you leave your job, you can file a harassment/violence complaint for up to 2 years after leaving (s.127.1(12.1)(a)). - If a notice of the occurrence was given under the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations and a resolution process ran its course, you can file a complaint up to 2 years after that process ends, even if this is later than 2 years after you left (s.127.1(12.1)(b)). - When you file as a former employee, the Code’s internal complaint process applies to you and the employer as if you were still employed, until the matter is resolved (s.127.1(12)). - The change does not affect other complaints (e.g., pay, hours). It is limited to harassment and violence. - Employers (federally regulated) - You must carry out specified duties related to harassment and violence for former employees if the occurrence becomes known to you within 2 years after the person left, unless regulations state an exception (s.125(4)). - You may need to adjust policies, training, and record-keeping to manage complaints from former employees within these timelines. Data on costs: Data unavailable. - The complaint system will treat former employees as current employees for process steps needed to finish the case (s.127.1(12)). - Unions and health and safety representatives - You may see more cases involving former members within the extended complaint window. Prepare to support cases that continue after a worker leaves (s.127.1(12), s.127.1(12.1)). - Regulators (Labour Program, federal) - Potential for more or longer-running files involving former employees due to the extended timelines. Resource impact: Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill includes no direct appropriations or new fees. It changes complaint timelines and employer duties (Bill text). - Potential employer compliance costs to investigate and respond to former-employee complaints: Data unavailable. - Potential administrative impact on the federal Labour Program and related oversight: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Supports survivors who may delay reporting due to trauma or fear by extending filing time to the later of 2 years after leaving or 2 years after the resolution process ends when a notice was filed (s.127.1(12.1)). - Improves accountability by keeping employer duties for incidents that become known within 2 years after a worker leaves, subject to regulations (s.125(4)). - Clarifies that former employees can use the internal complaint process “as if” they were employees, reducing uncertainty about access to remedies after leaving (s.127.1(12)). - Aligns complaint timing with the federal harassment and violence regulations by linking to the formal resolution process when a notice under those regulations exists (s.127.1(12.1)). - Keeps the change targeted to harassment and violence, avoiding broader and costlier expansions of labour complaint timelines (Bill text). ## Opponents' View - Could increase employer burden and costs by requiring investigations after staff leave, with a longer window and potentially stale evidence, which may hinder fair resolution (s.125(4); s.127.1(12.1)). - The 2-year employer-duty limit tied to when the incident becomes known may not always match the extended complaint window tied to the end of the resolution process, creating procedural complexity (s.125(4); s.127.1(12.1)). - May strain regulatory resources by extending timelines and increasing case volume involving former employees; no funding is provided to manage added workload (Bill text; Data unavailable). - Overlap with other avenues (e.g., human rights complaints or civil claims) could create confusion about forums and deadlines; the bill does not address coordination among systems (Bill text).

Trade Deals Can't Expand Dairy, Poultry, Eggs

## Summary This bill changes the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. It would bar the Minister of Foreign Affairs from agreeing in any trade treaty to expand import access for supply‑managed goods. These goods are dairy products, poultry, and eggs. It does not change Canada’s current tariffs or quotas. It only limits what future trade deals can include (Bill s.10(2.1)). - Blocks any future trade deal from increasing tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for dairy, poultry, or eggs (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)). - Blocks any future trade deal from lowering over‑quota tariffs on those goods (Bill s.10(2.1)(b)). - Leaves existing trade agreements and current TRQs/tariffs as they are; the bill does not act retroactively (Bill s.10(2.1)). - Affects how Canada can negotiate future trade agreements, by removing two bargaining options for these goods. - No direct changes to domestic supply‑management rules or farm quotas. ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate change in grocery prices. The bill does not change current tariffs, quotas, or prices (Bill s.10(2.1)). - In future trade talks, Canada could not expand import quotas or lower over‑quota tariffs for dairy, poultry, or eggs. Any price effects that might have come from such concessions would not occur. Data unavailable. - Farmers and workers in supply‑managed sectors (dairy, poultry, eggs) - More policy certainty. Future trade deals could not add new import access for these products through higher TRQs or lower over‑quota tariffs (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)-(b)). - Existing protections remain. Over‑quota tariffs on these goods are high, often above 200% under Canada’s tariff schedule, and would stay unless changed by domestic law (Customs Tariff; Bill s.10(2.1)). - Food processors, retailers, and restaurants that use dairy, poultry, or eggs - Future trade agreements would not create new or larger TRQs for these inputs. Planning should assume no extra duty‑reduced import volumes from future trade deals (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)). - Over‑quota import costs would remain high unless changed by domestic law, since trade deals could not lower those tariffs (Bill s.10(2.1)(b)). - Importers of dairy, poultry, or eggs - No new access in future trade deals via larger TRQs or lower over‑quota tariffs for these goods (Bill s.10(2.1)). - Current TRQs and administration stay the same unless changed by other laws or regulations. Data unavailable. - Exporters in other sectors - Canada would have fewer options to trade off market access in these supply‑managed goods when bargaining for access abroad. This could affect the scope or pace of future trade deals. Data unavailable. - Federal government and trade negotiators - Negotiators could not offer, in any treaty or agreement, increases to TRQs or cuts to over‑quota tariffs for these goods (Bill s.10(2.1)). - The amendment is placed in the section of the Act dealing with the Minister of Foreign Affairs (s.10). Other ministerial authorities in the Act are not amended, which may raise interpretation questions (Bill s.10; Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act). - Timing - If enacted, the constraint would apply on Royal Assent to future treaties and agreements; existing commitments would not change (Bill s.10(2.1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations are in the bill; it creates no new programs, taxes, fees, or penalties (Bill s.10(2.1)). - No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. - Possible indirect economic effects would depend on outcomes of future trade negotiations. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Protects supply management by law. The bill prevents future trade deals from expanding import access for dairy, poultry, and egg products, preserving the current policy framework (Bill s.10(2.1)(a)-(b)). - Provides certainty for farm planning and investment. With no future treaty‑based increases to TRQs or cuts to over‑quota tariffs, producers can plan around stable market shares (Bill s.10(2.1)). - Avoids repeating past market‑access concessions in these sectors. Supporters say this reduces the risk that farmers lose domestic share in future talks (Bill s.10(2.1)). - May limit future compensation needs. When past trade agreements granted access in these sectors, the federal government created compensation programs for affected producers; locking in protections could reduce that need in future (Government of Canada announcements; Data unavailable for totals). ## Opponents' View - Reduces Canada’s flexibility in trade negotiations. By removing two standard bargaining tools—larger TRQs and lower over‑quota tariffs—Canada may find it harder to secure gains for other sectors (Bill s.10(2.1); Data unavailable). - Could limit the scope or timeline of future trade deals. Partners often seek agricultural access; Canada would be unable to offer it in these categories, which may constrain agreements (Bill s.10(2.1); Data unavailable). - May keep consumer prices above levels that could result from liberalization. Non‑partisan research has found domestic prices under supply management are generally above world prices; blocking future access keeps that structure in place (Library of Parliament, 2018; Data unavailable for bill‑specific effects). - Legal drafting and enforceability concerns. The amendment applies to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (s.10), while trade negotiations are also led by the Minister for International Trade under a different section of the Act. This may raise questions about coverage and remedies if a contrary commitment were made (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act; Bill s.10(2.1)). - Unclear remedy. The bill bars certain commitments but sets no explicit enforcement process or penalties. Any dispute would likely be resolved only after a commitment is made, creating risk (Bill s.10(2.1)).

MPs Deemed Need-to-Know for Secret Clearances

## Summary This bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act to change how Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators apply for a Secret security clearance. It deems that an MP or Senator who applies for a Secret clearance has a “need to know” for the purpose of having their application considered, while keeping all other screening steps in place (Bill, subs. (1); Preamble). It does not grant automatic access to any specific documents and does not limit parliamentary privileges (Bill, subs. (2)). - Deems “need to know” for MPs and Senators at the application stage for Secret clearances only (Bill, subs. (1)). - Keeps the normal personnel security screening; clearance can still be denied (Preamble). - Does not require departments to disclose classified information after a clearance is issued (Bill, subs. (1)). - Leaves parliamentary powers and privileges unchanged (Bill, subs. (2)). - Addresses a stated gap that there is no standard way for MPs to request and obtain classified information (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households: - No direct change to taxes, benefits, or public services. This bill affects internal government processes. - Members of Parliament and Senators: - You can apply for a Secret security clearance without first proving “need to know” to start the process. The bill deems that need for the application review (Bill, subs. (1)). - You must still pass the Government of Canada personnel security screening. Clearance is not automatic (Preamble). - The bill does not guarantee access to any specific document. The deeming applies only to considering your application, not to later disclosure decisions (Bill, subs. (1)). - In force on Royal Assent; no delayed effective date is stated in the bill text. - Federal departments and security agencies: - You must treat MPs’ and Senators’ Secret-clearance applications as meeting “need to know” for application consideration (Bill, subs. (1)). - You continue to apply standard personnel security screening and can deny or grant based on results (Preamble). - The bill does not set new rules for classified document handling or disclosure to cleared MPs/Senators. Existing laws and policies continue to apply. The bill adds a clarification that it does not limit parliamentary privileges (Bill, subs. (2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Fiscal note: Data unavailable. - Explicit appropriations in bill text: None. - New mandate: Consider MPs’ and Senators’ Secret-clearance applications with “need to know” deemed for the application stage (Bill, subs. (1)). - Expected number of new applications, per-application screening cost, and total workload impact: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Enhances parliamentary oversight by letting MPs and Senators get considered for Secret clearances without a “need to know” barrier at the outset, supporting accountability on national security decisions (Preamble; Bill, subs. (1)). - Maintains security safeguards because applicants still must pass personnel security screening before any clearance is granted (Preamble). - Addresses a process gap: there is no standardized method for MPs to request and obtain access to classified information; this creates a clearer path via clearance (Preamble). - Narrow scope reduces risk: applies only to Secret level, not Top Secret or special-access programs (Bill, subs. (1)). - Preserves parliamentary privileges and immunities, avoiding unintended limits on Parliament’s powers (Bill, subs. (2)). ## Opponents' View - Erodes the “need to know” control at the application stage, potentially expanding the pool of cleared individuals beyond what is operationally necessary (Bill, subs. (1)). Assumes more clearances increase exposure risk. - Creates implementation and resource strain: more applications would increase screening workload, but the bill provides no funding or staffing plan. Volume and costs are unspecified (No appropriation in bill text; Data unavailable). - Leaves key gaps: it does not set rules for how cleared MPs/Senators will access, store, or discuss classified information; departments must rely on existing, possibly uneven, practices (Bill is silent on handling and disclosure). - Ambiguity risk: the phrase “the information in respect of which the application is made” is not defined, which could lead to disputes over the scope of what “need to know” is deemed for at the application stage (Bill, subs. (1)).

New Crime: Coercive Control in Relationships

## Summary This bill creates a new Criminal Code offence for “coercive control of an intimate partner.” It targets a pattern of conduct that makes a partner believe their safety is threatened, including psychological safety. It updates related laws on bail, courtroom procedures, DNA orders, sex‑offender registration, firearms licensing, and tax/excise information sharing. - Defines coercive control as a pattern that can include violence or threats, sexual coercion, controlling a partner’s movements, money, health care, beliefs, work or school, and threats of self‑harm (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2)). - Sets intent or recklessness standards and recognizes psychological safety (s. 264.01(1), (5)). - Creates a hybrid offence with a maximum of 10 years in prison on indictment (s. 264.01(4)). - Limits self‑represented accused from personally cross‑examining the victim; counsel is appointed (s. 486.3(2)). - Adds the offence to bail provisions for weapons prohibitions, DNA order eligibility, and sex‑offender registration eligibility (ss. 515(4.1), 487.04(c)(v.1), 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)). - Updates firearms licensing criteria and allows tax and excise authorities to share information for investigations of this offence (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii); Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise statutes). ## What it means for you - Households and intimate partners - Certain ongoing controlling behaviours in a relationship can be charged as a crime if they form a pattern that could reasonably cause fear for safety, including psychological safety (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2), (5)). Takes effect on a date set by the Governor in Council (Coming into Force). - Covered acts include threats or use of violence against the partner, their child or someone they know, harm to a pet, sexual coercion, monitoring or limiting movements or social life (including by phone or online), controlling money, work, school, health care or medication, pressuring appearance or gender expression, restricting beliefs or language, and threatening suicide or self‑harm (s. 264.01(2)(a)–(c)). - Victims and witnesses - In these cases, a self‑represented accused cannot personally cross‑examine you unless the judge finds it necessary for justice; if barred, the court appoints counsel to conduct the cross‑examination (s. 486.3(2)). - Psychological safety is expressly protected, not only physical safety (s. 264.01(5)). - Accused persons and defendants - The offence is hybrid: prosecutors may proceed summarily or by indictment; the maximum penalty on indictment is up to 10 years (s. 264.01(4)). - Courts may order you to provide a DNA sample upon conviction because the offence is a “secondary designated offence” (s. 487.04(c)(v.1), with orders governed by s. 487.051). - You may be ordered to register under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act if statutory criteria are met, because the offence is listed as a “secondary offence” (s. 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1), with orders under s. 490.012). - On release, courts must consider adding a condition prohibiting possession of firearms and related items; if the court finds it desirable for safety, it must impose the condition (s. 515(4.1) as amended; s. 515(4.3)(b)). - Gun owners and applicants - Firearms licensing officials must consider a conviction for this new offence when assessing eligibility, which can lead to refusal or revocation (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii) as amended). - Bail conditions for this offence can include weapons prohibitions if needed for safety (Criminal Code s. 515(4.1)). - Military members - In military proceedings for the equivalent offence under s. 130, a self‑represented accused may not personally cross‑examine the victim; appointed defence counsel will do so (National Defence Act s. 183.3(2)). - Taxpayers and businesses - Tax and excise authorities may share otherwise confidential information for investigations or proceedings involving this offence, consistent with existing rules for listed serious crimes (Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise Tax Act s. 295(5.04)(a)(i)(D); Excise Act, 2001 s. 211(6.4)(a)(i)(D)). - Police, prosecutors, and courts - The offence requires proof of a “pattern of conduct” and either intent to cause fear for safety or recklessness about causing that fear (Criminal Code s. 264.01(1)–(2)). - Courts must consider relationship context and vulnerability when assessing the conduct (s. 264.01(3)). - Timing - The law takes effect on a date fixed by Order in Council; no start date is specified in the bill (Coming into Force). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill text. It creates a new criminal offence and related procedural changes but does not authorize new spending (Bill, Criminal Code amendments; Consequential Amendments). - Potential impacts on policing, courts, legal aid, and corrections are not quantified in public documents. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Fills a gap by criminalizing a sustained pattern of coercive control, not only isolated acts, allowing earlier intervention before physical harm occurs (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2), (3), (5)). Assumes earlier intervention will reduce harm; supporting data not provided in the bill. - Provides clearer guidance by listing common controlling behaviours, including financial control, surveillance, and threats of self‑harm (s. 264.01(2)(c)). Assumes lists will improve charging consistency. - Recognizes psychological safety explicitly, aligning the law with modern understanding of abuse (s. 264.01(5)). - Enhances victim protections by limiting personal cross‑examination by the accused and appointing counsel instead (s. 486.3(2)). - Strengthens public safety tools: eligibility for DNA orders and sex‑offender registration may help investigations and monitoring of high‑risk offenders (ss. 487.04(c)(v.1); 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)). Assumes these tools improve outcomes; quantitative impact not provided. - Improves safety at release by requiring courts to consider, and where warranted impose, weapons prohibitions on bail (s. 515(4.1)). ## Opponents' View - Risk of vagueness and overbreadth: the offence covers “any other conduct” that could reasonably be expected to cause fear for safety, including psychological safety, which may be subjective and vary by context (Criminal Code s. 264.01(2)(c), (5)). Could lead to inconsistent application. - Overlap with existing offences (e.g., assault, sexual assault, criminal harassment) may duplicate tools rather than create new ones, increasing complexity and potential for “charge stacking” (ss. 264, 271–273; new s. 264.01). - Proof challenges: establishing a “pattern of conduct,” intent or recklessness, and the “reasonable” expectation of fear may be difficult, potentially leading to low conviction rates or prolonged cases (s. 264.01(1)–(2)). - Resource strain: new offence could increase investigations, prosecutions, and need for appointed cross‑examination counsel, with budget impacts not assessed in the bill. Data unavailable. - Privacy and collateral effects: adding the offence to tax and excise information‑sharing lists expands when confidential taxpayer information can be disclosed (Income Tax Act s. 241(9.5)(a)(i)(D); Excise statutes). Assumes disclosure risks outweigh public safety benefits; no quantified evidence in the bill. - Firearms and registry consequences: listing the offence for firearms licensing consideration and for DNA/SOIRA eligibility may impose significant collateral penalties after conviction; critics may question proportionality for non‑physical conduct cases (Firearms Act s. 5(2)(a)(iii); Criminal Code ss. 487.04(c)(v.1), 490.011(1)(a)(ix.1)).

Canada creates public company owners registry

## Summary This bill amends the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to create a public registry of individuals with significant control (ISC) over federally incorporated companies, strengthen data reporting and verification, and add enforcement tools. It also updates related laws to enable data checks with the Canada Revenue Agency and to support anti–money laundering controls. Most provisions take effect on dates set by the Governor in Council. - Makes certain ISC information public: name; an address (service or, if none, residential); how and when the person became an ISC; and prescribed items, with safety and age-based exceptions (new CBCA provisions tied to 21.303; “Information available to public”). - Requires corporations to update ISC information at least yearly, on the Director’s request, and on timelines set by regulation; and to send selected ISC data to the Director annually and within 15 days of changes (CBCA 21.1(2); 21.21(1)–(2)). - Adds an offence for failing to send required ISC information to the Director; fine up to $100,000 (CBCA 21.21(4)). - Increases penalties for knowing non-compliance by directors/officers to up to $1,000,000 or 5 years’ imprisonment, or both (CBCA 21.4(5)). - Allows the Director to dissolve corporations for certain filing/payment failures and to make inquiries that must be answered (CBCA 212(1)(a)(iii), 212(3.1), 237). - Permits CRA to share limited tax data to validate CBCA ISC filings; and requires reporting of beneficial ownership discrepancies under anti–money laundering rules (Income Tax Act 241(4)(u); PCMLTFA 73(1)(c)). ## What it means for you - Households - If you are listed as an ISC of a CBCA corporation, the public will see your name and an address. If you provide an address for service, that is shown; if not, your residential address is shown (new CBCA “Information available to public” (1)(a)–(c)). - The public will also see how you have control and the dates you became or ceased to be an ISC (CBCA 21.1(1)(c)–(d), made public by new provisions). - Your information will not be public if you are under 18, if prescribed circumstances apply, or if you receive an exemption due to a serious safety risk, incapacity, a confidentiality law, or other prescribed reasons (new CBCA “Information available to public” (2)–(3)). - Whistleblowers’ identities are protected: information that could reveal who reported suspected wrongdoing to the Director will not be made public, except to specific investigative bodies (CBCA 266.1(1)–(2)). - Businesses (CBCA corporations) - You must identify all ISCs and keep a register that includes name, date of birth, residential address, address for service (if provided), citizenship, and other required details (CBCA 21.1(1)(a), (a.1)). - You must verify and update the ISC register at least once each financial year, on the Director’s request, and when regulations require (CBCA 21.1(2)). - You must send ISC information the Director specifies each year, and send specified changes within 15 days of recording them; after certain certificate events, you must also send the Director ISC information within the period the Director sets (CBCA 21.21(1)–(2)). - Failure to send required information without reasonable cause is an offence, punishable by a fine up to $100,000 (CBCA 21.21(4)). - Knowing authorization or acquiescence by directors/officers in specified violations can lead to fines up to $1,000,000, up to 5 years’ imprisonment, or both (CBCA 21.4(1), (5)). - The Director can dissolve a corporation for defaulting for one year on required filings/fees, for non-payment of the incorporation fee, or for failing to comply with 21.21(2) (CBCA 212(1)(a)(iii), 212(3.1)). - The Director may make inquiries and require documents or information from any person; you must respond (CBCA 237(1)–(2)). - The Director can refuse to issue a certificate of existence if you are in default on filings or fees (CBCA 263.1(2)). - The Director can set the form, content, signatures, and timing rules for electronic filings, and may require verification of facts in filings (CBCA 258.1; 259(1)). - Public and civil society - You will be able to search key ISC information for CBCA corporations, improving visibility into who owns or controls companies (new CBCA “Information available to public” (1)). - General access under CBCA section 266 will not include raw data sent under 21.21; access will occur through the specific public-disclosure provisions (coordinating amendment to CBCA 266). - Provinces and regulators - The federal Director may share ISC information with provincial corporate registries or departments responsible for corporate law (new CBCA “Provision of information by Director”). - Financial institutions and other reporting entities must report discrepancies in beneficial ownership information found during identity verification to government institutions or agencies, as set by regulation (PCMLTFA 73(1)(c)). - Taxpayers and privacy - CRA may share limited shareholder and related-corporation data (including names and identifiers like SIN or BN) with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, only to verify CBCA ISC filings for private corporations (Income Tax Act 241(4)(u)). This data is not part of the public registry. - Timing - Provisions take effect on dates set by order of the Governor in Council; some are coordinated with sections of the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 (Coming into Force). ## Expenses - Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Fiscal information - No fiscal note located in the bill text. Data unavailable. - The Act authorizes the Director to charge fees for receiving, examining, filing, issuing, and copying documents; specific fee amounts will be set by regulation or by the Director (CBCA 261(1)(b); 261.1; 258.1). Data unavailable. - Fine revenue may result from new and expanded offences; amounts depend on enforcement outcomes. Data unavailable. - Administrative costs to implement the registry and verification are not specified in the bill. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves transparency and deters misuse of companies by making core ISC details public, including names, addresses, and the nature and timing of control (new CBCA “Information available to public” (1); 21.1(1)(c)–(d)). - Strengthens compliance through regular updates, 15-day reporting of changes, and higher penalties for knowing violations by directors and officers (CBCA 21.1(2); 21.21(1)–(2), (4); 21.4(5)). - Enhances data quality by allowing CRA to validate corporate ownership data against tax records for private corporations (Income Tax Act 241(4)(u)). - Supports anti–money laundering efforts by requiring reporting of beneficial ownership discrepancies found during identity checks (PCMLTFA 73(1)(c)). - Protects vulnerable individuals by excluding minors and allowing exemptions where disclosure would seriously threaten safety or where confidentiality laws apply (new CBCA “Information available to public” (2)–(3)). - Facilitates intergovernmental cooperation by permitting sharing of ISC information with provincial corporate authorities (new CBCA “Provision of information by Director”). ## Opponents' View - Privacy concerns: publishing an individual’s residential address if no service address is provided may expose personal information; although exemptions exist, approval is discretionary and case-by-case (new CBCA “Information available to public” (1)(b)–(c), (3)). - Data accuracy risks: corporations self-report; accuracy depends on corporate compliance and the Director’s verification tools. CRA data-sharing helps only for private corporations and selected fields (Income Tax Act 241(4)(u)); errors or omissions may persist (CBCA 21.1(2); 21.21). - Compliance burden on small businesses: yearly verification, 15-day change reporting, and possible inquiries add administrative work and potential costs; fee schedules will be set later, creating uncertainty (CBCA 21.1(2); 21.21(1)–(2); 258.1; 261–261.1). - Enforcement scope and fragmentation: the bill applies to CBCA (federally incorporated) corporations; many companies are incorporated provincially. The Director can share data with provinces, but provincial coverage depends on separate laws (new CBCA “Provision of information by Director”). - Implementation and timing risk: many sections take effect by order in council and are coordinated with other Acts, which can delay or phase in key features (Coming into Force; coordinating amendment to CBCA 266). - Potential unintended consequences: public data could be misused for harassment or fraud if individuals do not provide a service address; while safety exemptions exist, they rely on applications and Director discretion (new CBCA “Information available to public” (1), (3)).

Coordinating Prairie Green Economy Programs

## Summary This Act tells the federal minister in charge of Prairie economic development to create a framework to build a green economy in the Prairie provinces. The minister must work with six other federal ministers, consult local and Indigenous leaders, and report progress to Parliament on a set timeline. The Act sets priorities but does not fund projects or create new programs by itself. - Coordinates how federal programs are delivered in the Prairies to support a green economy (s. 3(1)). - Requires consultation with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, employers, employees, and the private sector, unless another law already requires similar consultation (s. 3(2), 3(2.1)). - Sets focus areas: rural and small-city transit; jobs and skills in regions tied to traditional energy; natural infrastructure and clean environment projects (including nuclear energy); clean energy in key sectors; locally tailored green projects; and climate adaptation infrastructure (s. 3(3)(a)-(f)). - Requires a framework report within 12 months of the Act coming into force, online publication within 10 days of tabling, a progress report within 2 years after that, and then every 5 years (s. 4(1)-(2), s. 5). ## What it means for you - Households - Rural and small-city residents may see federal programs place more emphasis on improving public transportation options, depending on how the framework shapes program delivery (s. 3(3)(a)). No direct benefits are guaranteed by the Act. - Communities may see more planning for climate adaptation infrastructure (for floods, fires, heat), where federal programs are involved (s. 3(3)(f)). - Workers - Workers in regions that rely on oil, gas, coal, or related industries may see more focus on job creation and skills transfer in federal programming, aimed at a net‑zero economy (s. 3(3)(b)). The Act does not itself create training or jobs but directs the framework to include such measures. - Businesses - Firms in clean energy, construction, forestry, agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, and transportation may find more opportunities as federal programs prioritize natural infrastructure, clean energy, and climate projects (s. 3(3)(c)-(e)). - Projects can draw on all energy sources, including nuclear, where consistent with a clean environment focus (s. 3(3)(c)). - Local governments and Indigenous governing bodies - The minister must consult provincial, municipal, and Indigenous governing bodies when developing the framework, unless another law already requires similar consultations (s. 3(2), 3(2.1)). - Local context and participation are required considerations when establishing programs and projects that stimulate a green economy (s. 3(3)(e)). - Timing and transparency - Framework due within 12 months of the Act coming into force; posted online within 10 days after tabling in both Houses of Parliament (s. 4(1)-(2)). - Progress and effectiveness report due within 2 years after the framework is tabled, then every 5 years (s. 5). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations, taxes, or fees are created by the Act (Act text). - Federal departments must develop the framework and produce reports on set timelines; administrative costs are not estimated in public sources (Data unavailable). - Any future project spending would come from separate program decisions and budgets, not this Act (Act text). ## Proponents' View - Better coordination across seven federal portfolios can reduce duplication and align programs for greater impact in the Prairies (s. 3(1)). - Required consultations with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, employers, and employees should make programs fit local needs and labor markets (s. 3(2)). - Clear priorities direct federal efforts to: - improve rural and small-city transit options (s. 3(3)(a)); - support worker transition and job creation in traditional energy regions (s. 3(3)(b)); - build natural infrastructure and climate-resilient projects (s. 3(3)(c), 3(3)(f)). - Including all energy sources, such as nuclear, keeps options open to reach net‑zero while maintaining reliability (s. 3(3)(c)). - Fixed deadlines for the framework and progress reports increase transparency and accountability (12 months; then 2 years; then every 5 years) (s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 5). ## Opponents' View - The Act does not fund projects or change eligibility rules; it may add process without delivering concrete results (no appropriations in Act text). - Broad goals like “prioritizing projects” lack criteria; agencies could interpret them differently, leading to uneven implementation across regions (s. 3(3)(c), 3(3)(e)). - Reporting and coordination duties may consume staff time and delay existing program delivery; administrative costs are unknown (Data unavailable). - The consultation exception could limit new engagement where existing processes are deemed sufficient, leaving some voices underrepresented (s. 3(2.1)). - Federal coordination on sectors like transportation and natural resources could overlap with provincial responsibilities, creating intergovernmental friction or mixed signals for investors (s. 3(1), s. 3(3)).

Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

Supplementary Federal Spending for 2019–20

## Summary This supply bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $4,855,257,827 for programs and operations in 2019–2020 that were not covered in the main budget, based on Supplementary Estimates (A) (Schedules 1–2). Most amounts are available for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2020, with a smaller portion allowed to be spent until March 31, 2021 (Schedule 2). The authority is effective retroactive to April 1, 2019, and unused funds generally lapse after the allowed period (Effective date (2); Order of payment (2)). - Authorizes $4,749,734,561 for one-year items (Schedule 1) and $105,523,266 for two-year items (Schedule 2). - Targets many departments, including Veterans Affairs, Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans, Transport, RCMP, and Treasury Board Secretariat (Schedule 1). - Permits Schedule 2 amounts to be spent up to March 31, 2021; remaining balances then lapse (Order of payment (2); Schedule 2). - Does not change eligibility rules or create new programs; it provides spending authority for stated purposes only (Purpose of each item (1)). ## What it means for you - Households and service users - Veterans: Additional $741,968,100 for grants and contributions, plus $115,476,233 for operations at Veterans Affairs; supports delivery of veterans’ benefits and services during 2019–2020 (Schedule 1). - Air travel: $26,110,960 to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority for operating and capital costs; may support screening capacity in airports during 2019–2020 (Schedule 1). - International assistance and security: $538,115,990 in contributions at Foreign Affairs for trade promotion, humanitarian assistance, development, and peace/security work; total for the department is $565,493,354 (Schedule 1). - Health and research: Added funding to Health ($99,452,474), Canadian Institutes of Health Research ($6,758,252), NSERC ($18,789,106), and SSHRC ($1,962,678); supports regulatory, health, and research grants in 2019–2020 (Schedule 1). - Culture and media: $63,898,198 for Canadian Heritage (operations and contributions) and $7,500,000 to Telefilm Canada (Schedule 1). - Parks and heritage sites: $20,539,271 for Parks Canada (two‑year authority) for programs, capital, grants, and contributions (Schedule 2). - Workers (federal public service, RCMP, Canadian Forces) - Compensation adjustments: $466,720,520 under Treasury Board to supplement other appropriations when terms and conditions of employment are adjusted; total for TBS is $526,418,480 (Schedule 1). - RCMP: $268,520,407 across operating, capital, and contributions (Schedule 1). - Businesses and industry - Transport programs: $200,093,768 for a Green and Innovative Transportation System, $15,192,044 for a Safe and Secure Transportation System, and $6,965,510 for an Efficient Transportation System; total Transport Canada funding is $223,868,210 (Schedule 1). - Fisheries, oceans, and marine services: $355,892,917 to Fisheries and Oceans, including Coast Guard operations, capital, and contributions (Schedule 1). - Trade and investment: Foreign Affairs contributions include trade and investment promotion activities (Schedule 1). - Indigenous communities and northern residents - Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: $185,789,393 in contributions and $87,505,898 for operations; supports listed purposes such as economic development capacity and infrastructure works (Schedule 1). - Indigenous Services: $18,531,900 in contributions and $14,062,240 for operations linked to health protection and services (Schedule 1). - Travelers and border users - Border services and customs: $63,224,651 to the Canada Border Services Agency (two‑year authority) for operating and capital costs (Schedule 2). - Marine ferry users: $3,000,000 to Marine Atlantic for management, capital, and ferry services between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador (Schedule 1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $4,855,257,827 (one-time authority for FY2019–2020). - Total authorized: $4,855,257,827; based on Supplementary Estimates (A) (Grant of sum; Schedules 1–2). - Schedule 1 total (one-year items): $4,749,734,561 (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 total (available through March 31, 2021): $105,523,266 (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Total appropriation | $4,855,257,827 | One-time (FY2019–2020) | Grant of sum; Schedules 1–2 Schedule 1 subtotal | $4,749,734,561 | Spendable through Mar 31, 2020 (with non-cash year-end adjustments) | Schedule 1 Schedule 2 subtotal | $105,523,266 | Spendable through Mar 31, 2021 | Schedule 2; Order of payment (2) Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (total) | $565,493,354 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 Veterans Affairs (total) | $857,444,333 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (total) | $526,418,480 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 National Defence (total) | $427,162,714 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 Fisheries and Oceans (total) | $355,892,917 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 RCMP (total) | $268,520,407 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 Transport Canada (total) | $223,868,210 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 Shared Services Canada (total) | $235,245,618 | FY2019–2020 | Schedule 1 CBSA (two‑year authority) | $63,224,651 | Through Mar 31, 2021 | Schedule 2 CRA (two‑year authority) | $21,759,344 | Through Mar 31, 2021 | Schedule 2 Parks Canada (two‑year authority) | $20,539,271 | Through Mar 31, 2021 | Schedule 2 Notes: - Each item can be spent only for its stated purpose and terms (Purpose of each item (1)). - Schedule 1 appropriations may be charged after year‑end only to make non‑cash adjustments before Public Accounts are tabled (Adjustments — Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 amounts may be spent and applied up to March 31, 2021; uncharged balances then lapse, subject to standard adjustments (Order of payment (2); Schedule 2). ## Proponents' View - Maintains core services without interruption by providing retroactive authority to April 1, 2019, covering gaps from Supplementary Estimates (A) (Effective date (2); Schedules 1–2). - Directs large, time‑limited funds to urgent priorities, such as veterans’ benefits and services ($857.4 million), international assistance and trade promotion ($565.5 million), and transportation safety and innovation ($223.9 million) (Schedule 1). - Supports public service labour agreements and workforce stability via $466.7 million for compensation adjustments (Schedule 1). - Enhances safety and security capacity through added funds to CATSA ($26.1 million), RCMP ($268.5 million), and CBSA ($63.2 million, two‑year) (Schedules 1–2). - Includes clear lapse and purpose controls to limit spending and promote accountability; unused funds generally lapse at year‑end or the following year for Schedule 2 (Purpose of each item (1); Order of payment (2)). ## Opponents' View - Limited program detail in an appropriation bill reduces Parliament’s ability to assess outcomes; many lines refer broadly to “grants listed in the Estimates” without itemized impacts (multiple Votes, Schedule 1). - Broad Treasury Board authorities (e.g., $466.7 million for compensation adjustments; $45.8 million for government‑wide initiatives) may allow reallocations with limited visibility until Public Accounts (Schedule 1). - Retroactive approval to April 1, 2019, can compress scrutiny after funds are already needed or partially committed (Effective date (2)). - Two‑year spending windows (Schedule 2) and year‑end adjustment provisions can make tracking actual use complex for the public (Adjustments — Schedules 1–2; Order of payment (2)). - The bill does not identify offsets or revenue increases; it authorizes gross outlays from the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to $4.855 billion (Grant of sum).

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

## Summary - This bill is called the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act. It lowers the federal income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket, creates a temporary GST/HST rebate for first-time buyers of new homes, repeals the federal fuel charge (carbon price on fuels), and updates privacy rules for federal political parties. - The main goal is to reduce everyday costs, support first-time home buyers, and set a single national privacy framework for political parties. Key changes - Lowers the federal tax rate on the lowest bracket to 14.5% in 2025 and 14% from 2026 onward (applies to income up to about $57,000; other brackets stay the same). - Adds a temporary GST/HST rebate for first-time buyers of new homes, condos, co‑op units, and owner‑built homes. Maximum rebate is up to $50,000, with price limits and a phase‑out at higher prices. - Repeals the federal fuel charge (the carbon price on gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, etc.) and related regulations, with changes starting April 1, 2025 and some parts ending later, including in 2035. - Requires federal political parties to publish and follow a privacy policy, name a privacy officer, and certify compliance when registering; sets a single federal regime for how parties handle personal information. ## What it means for you - Workers and taxpayers - You will pay a lower federal tax rate on the first part of your income starting in 2025, and a bit more in 2026. This means slightly higher take‑home pay for most people. - First-time home buyers of new homes - You may qualify for an extra GST/HST new housing rebate up to $50,000 on a newly built home, condo, co‑op unit, or an owner‑built home. - Key rules include: you must be 18+, a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and neither you nor your spouse/partner owned and lived in a home as your main home in the last 4 years. - The home must be your primary residence. You must be the first occupant after construction or major renovation. - Timing: purchase agreements generally must be signed between March 20, 2025 and 2030 (inclusive); construction must start before 2031 and be substantially completed before 2036; transfer/possession before 2036. - Amounts: full extra rebate (up to $50,000, limited by the tax paid) if the price is $1,000,000 or less (different limits apply to some cases), with a gradual phase‑out up to $1,500,000. For building‑only and co‑op cases, the phase‑out range is roughly $1,050,000 to $1,575,000. - In HST provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador), the phase‑out thresholds are set slightly higher to match provincial tax. - Only one person in a couple can claim, and you cannot claim more than once. Anti‑avoidance rules block re‑writing contracts just to qualify. - Home builders and sellers - Buyers may be more able to afford new builds because of the rebate. You may need to handle rebate applications submitted through builders in some cases. - Drivers and households using fossil fuels - The federal fuel charge added to gasoline, diesel, home heating fuels, and natural gas will be repealed in stages starting April 1, 2025. This should remove that federal charge from fuel bills as repeal dates take effect. - Voters and party supporters - Federal political parties must have a public privacy policy in plain language, name a privacy officer, explain what data they collect and how, and describe staff/volunteer training. - Parties and their candidates, riding associations, staff, and volunteers must follow the party’s policy. - Parties are not required to follow provincial privacy laws when doing political activities, unless their own policy says so. - You do not gain a right to access or correct your data held by parties under this bill. Parties cannot be required to provide access or corrections unless they choose to in their policy. ## Expenses No publicly available information. - The tax rate cut would reduce federal income tax revenue. - The new housing rebate would increase GST/HST refunds paid to eligible first-time buyers. - Repealing the federal fuel charge would reduce related revenues and administration/enforcement costs. - Election-related privacy changes could add small administrative costs for parties and for Elections Canada (annual meeting), but the bill does not state amounts. ## Proponents' View - Cuts income taxes for most Canadians, letting people keep more of every paycheque. - Helps first-time buyers afford new homes by reducing the GST/HST burden, with larger support for modestly priced new builds. - Removes the federal fuel charge to lower costs at the pump and on home heating. - Sets clear, uniform national rules for how political parties handle personal data, with public policies and a named privacy officer. - Anti‑avoidance rules keep the housing rebate targeted and prevent gaming the system. ## Opponents' View - Repealing the fuel charge weakens climate policy and could increase emissions; households may also lose associated carbon price rebates that offset costs. - The tax cut and rebates reduce federal revenue and could widen the deficit or force spending cuts elsewhere. - The housing rebate may push up prices for new homes or mainly benefit higher‑priced markets; it excludes resale homes and people who are not first‑time buyers. - The privacy rules for parties are weaker than provincial standards: people do not get rights to access or correct their data, and parties are exempt from provincial privacy laws when campaigning. - The rebate rules are complex, with tight timing and occupancy conditions that could confuse buyers.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

## Summary This bill is a broad public safety and immigration package. It aims to tighten border controls, speed up action against illegal drugs and money laundering, change parts of the asylum system, and update how agencies share information. - Requires airports, ports, bridges, and similar sites to give the border agency free space and access to inspect exports. - Lets Health add drug precursors (chemicals used to make illegal drugs) quickly and confirms police can be exempt from some drug‑crime rules during lawful undercover work. - Moves the Canadian Coast Guard to the Defence Minister and adds security and intelligence roles. - Expands information‑sharing by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) with other governments under written safeguards. - Changes asylum rules (ends the “safe country” list, adds new ineligibility rules, tighter timelines, and allows cases to be paused if the person is outside Canada). - Gives the federal cabinet power to pause, suspend, or end processing of certain immigration applications and to suspend or vary visas and permits in the public interest, with reports to Parliament. - Strengthens anti‑money‑laundering law with higher fines, mandatory compliance agreements and orders, and enrollment of more businesses with FINTRAC (the federal financial intelligence unit). - Updates the Sex Offender Registry to add reporting duties and allow CBSA to share border‑crossing data with police. ## What it means for you - Exporters, carriers, and port/airport operators - Border officers get more access to goods, warehouses, and export areas. Expect more inspections and the need to open packages on request. - Owners of international bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, wharves, and docks must provide CBSA facilities free of charge. - People seeking asylum in Canada - The old “designated countries of origin” system ends. - New ineligibility rules: if you entered after June 24, 2020 and wait more than one year to claim asylum, your claim can be ruled ineligible (with possible exceptions set by regulation). If you crossed the U.S.–Canada land border between official ports and miss the set time limit to claim, you can be ruled ineligible. - If you leave Canada while your claim or appeal is pending, it will be paused; if you voluntarily return to the country you fled before a decision, your claim or appeal is deemed abandoned. - You must give documents and information within set deadlines or risk your claim being deemed abandoned before it is even referred to the Refugee Board. - Immigrants, students, and temporary workers - The federal cabinet can, for public‑interest reasons (e.g., fraud, public health or security), order pauses on accepting certain applications, suspend or end processing of pending applications, or suspend/vary documents and impose conditions. Fees can be repaid without interest if processing is ended. - Officers can require you to answer questions and appear for an examination, including while outside Canada, to confirm you still meet visa or permit requirements. - Families and communities - The Coast Guard shifts under the Defence Minister and is given clearer security and intelligence roles. Expect closer coordination on marine security along with continued search‑and‑rescue and icebreaking. - The Sex Offender Registry adds details and deadlines (like reporting changes to vehicles) and allows CBSA to share travel in/out of Canada with law enforcement to help prevent and investigate sexual offences. - Businesses that handle money or value (banks, fintechs, money services, casinos, real estate, dealers in virtual currency, and others listed in law) - You may have to enroll with FINTRAC (even if not previously registered), keep risk‑based compliance programs, and meet stricter recordkeeping and reporting. - Penalties rise sharply, including potential fines tied to a percentage of global revenue. After a violation, you must enter a compliance agreement; ignoring a compliance order carries even higher penalties. - FINTRAC can share certain intelligence with the Commissioner of Canada Elections. - Police and public safety - Undercover officers, when acting lawfully under designated rules, can be exempted from “inchoate” drug offences (like conspiracy) during investigations. - Monthly public reports will show how many removal orders were enforced and reasons for delays. - Privacy and data sharing - IRCC can share personal information within the department and with other federal and provincial bodies under written agreements that set limits and purposes. Provinces cannot pass that info to foreign entities without the federal minister’s consent and safeguards. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Strengthens border security by giving CBSA better access to export goods and facilities, helping stop guns, drugs, and other contraband from leaving or entering Canada. - Speeds action against illegal drugs by quickly controlling new precursors used to make substances like fentanyl, and by clarifying police powers for undercover operations. - Improves the asylum system by ending the “safe country” list, setting clearer deadlines, and reducing backlogs through abandonment/withdrawal rules and monthly removal reporting. - Gives government tools to quickly respond to fraud, surges, or health/security risks by pausing or adjusting immigration streams, while reporting these actions to Parliament. - Cracks down on money laundering and terrorist financing with higher penalties, mandatory compliance steps, and wider coverage of businesses, protecting Canada’s financial system. - Enhances safety through better sharing of sex offender travel data and more complete registry information to help prevent sexual crimes. - Moves the Coast Guard under Defence to better coordinate marine security while keeping essential services like search and rescue. ## Opponents' View - Grants broad executive power to pause, suspend, or end immigration processing and to suspend or vary visas, which critics say could harm fairness for applicants and create uncertainty for families and employers. - Adds new asylum ineligibility rules (late claims and irregular border entries beyond a time limit) that may bar people with real protection needs who face barriers to filing quickly. - Expands information‑sharing by IRCC and CBSA, raising privacy concerns about how personal data is used, stored, and shared across governments. - Increases inspections and obligations at export sites and warehouses, which could slow trade and add costs for exporters and operators. - Significantly raises compliance costs and legal risks for banks, fintechs, real estate, and other businesses; small firms may struggle with the burden and higher penalties. - Police exemptions during drug investigations and moving the Coast Guard under Defence may be seen as expanding security powers in ways that could affect civil liberties or “militarize” some services.

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

## Summary This bill changes who is a Canadian citizen by descent and fixes past gaps that left some people without citizenship. It also sets a clear test for future children and adoptees born or adopted outside Canada and restores citizenship to many “lost Canadians.” - Makes people born outside Canada before the law takes effect citizens if they had a Canadian parent. - For future births abroad, allows citizenship after the first generation if the Canadian parent spent about three years in Canada before the child’s birth. - Extends similar rules to children adopted outside Canada. - Restores citizenship to people who lost it under old “retention” rules. - Lets people who gain citizenship under this bill use a simpler process to give it up if they do not want it. - Confirms citizenship even if a qualifying parent (or grandparent) died before the law took effect. - Start date will be set later by the federal government. ## What it means for you - Canadians born abroad before the law starts - If you were born outside Canada before the law takes effect and had at least one Canadian parent, you become a Canadian automatically from birth. - You would still need to apply for a citizenship certificate (proof of citizenship) to get a passport. - Canadians having children abroad after the law starts - If you are a Canadian who was born outside Canada and you have a child abroad in the future, your child can be a citizen if you were physically in Canada for at least 1,095 days (about three years) before the child’s birth. - If you do not meet the three‑year presence in Canada, your child would not be a citizen by descent and would need another pathway to come to Canada. - Canadians adopting children from abroad - If you adopted a child outside Canada before the law takes effect and you were a Canadian at that time, your child can be granted citizenship. - For future adoptions abroad, your adopted child can be granted citizenship if the Canadian adoptive parent spent at least three years in Canada before the adoption. - People who lost citizenship under old rules - If you lost your citizenship because you did not apply to “retain” it by a deadline under old laws, this bill restores your citizenship automatically. - If you once became a citizen and later renounced it, this bill does not give it back automatically. - Families where a parent died earlier - If your qualifying Canadian parent (or grandparent) died before this bill takes effect, you can still be recognized as a citizen if they would have been Canadian under these new rules. - People who do not want Canadian citizenship - If you become a citizen because of this bill and prefer not to be one, there will be a simpler process to renounce (formally give up) citizenship. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Fixes long‑standing gaps that left “lost Canadians” without status even though they had a Canadian parent. - Keeps a real link to Canada for future generations by requiring about three years’ presence in Canada for parents who pass on citizenship from abroad. - Provides clear, simple rules for both births and adoptions outside Canada, reducing confusion. - Respects personal choice by offering a simplified way to renounce citizenship for those who gain it automatically. - Could reduce court cases and administrative headaches by clarifying who is a citizen from birth. ## Opponents' View - Retroactively adding citizens may strain processing systems and increase passport and certificate backlogs. - The three‑year presence test may be too strict for Canadians who build careers abroad, including aid workers, business people, and students. - Different treatment for children born before versus after the law’s start date could be seen as unfair or confusing. - Implementation may be complex, with many edge cases (for example, counting physical presence days), which could lead to delays or disputes.

Appropriation Act No. 1, 2025-26

## Summary This is a routine federal “supply” bill. It gives the Government of Canada permission to spend up to about $149.8 billion on departments, agencies, and Crown corporations for the fiscal year that ends March 31, 2026. It covers the parts of government spending that require an annual vote by Parliament. Key points: - Sets an overall spending limit of about $149.8 billion, effective April 1, 2025. - Lists funding for most departments and agencies (health, housing, defence, veterans, Indigenous services, transport, and more). - Gives two big revenue agencies (Canada Revenue Agency and Canada Border Services Agency) funding that can be used over two years (to March 31, 2027). - Cleans the books for old student debts by writing off about $197 million in uncollectable student and apprentice loans. - Includes central funds for emergencies and routine adjustments (for example, a $1 billion contingency fund and carry-forward authorities). ## What it means for you - General public - Government services keep running. Offices stay open, call centres answer, inspections happen, and programs are delivered. - Health protection work continues (food and product safety, disease prevention) through Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. - Policing and public safety receive ongoing support (RCMP, emergency preparedness). - Travelers and flyers - Airport screening and security continue (Canadian Air Transport Security Authority). - Border services remain staffed and equipped (CBSA funding spans two years to manage large projects and staffing). - Support for VIA Rail and the Windsor–Detroit bridge helps maintain travel options and infrastructure. - Families, renters, and homeowners - Housing programs and community infrastructure receive funding through the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. - The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is reimbursed for loans forgiven and other costs tied to housing programs. - Students and apprentices - About $197 million in long-overdue student and apprentice loans are written off, tidying up accounts. This does not change current loan rules, but it clears debts the government cannot collect. - Indigenous communities - Large operating and contribution funds flow to Indigenous Services and Crown–Indigenous Relations for health, infrastructure, services, and agreements with communities. - Veterans - Veterans Affairs receives funding for benefits administration and services. - Workers and businesses - Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development get operating funds to administer benefits and tax services. - Innovation, research, and tourism agencies, as well as regional development agencies, receive contributions that support jobs and investment. - CBC/Radio‑Canada, Canada Post, and cultural institutions receive operating and capital support. ## Expenses Estimated total authorized spending in this bill: about CAD $149.8 billion for 2025–26. - Examples of notable allocations in this Act (amounts authorized by this bill): - National Defence: operating, capital, and related grants/contributions totaling over $23 billion. - Indigenous Services Canada: over $15 billion (operating and contributions combined). - Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: several billion for operating, capital, and contributions. - Housing, Infrastructure and Communities: about $5.3 billion in contributions plus operating and capital. - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: about $4.8 billion to reimburse housing-related costs. - Veterans Affairs: several billion for operations and contributions. - CBC/Radio‑Canada: just over $1.0 billion (operating and capital). - Canada Revenue Agency (two-year authority): about $3.5 billion operating and $51 million capital. - Canada Border Services Agency (two-year authority): about $1.9 billion operating and $133 million capital. - Central votes managed by the Treasury Board Secretariat include: - $1.0 billion for contingencies (urgent or unforeseen needs). - Up to $3.0 billion for operating budget carry-forward and $750 million for capital carry-forward from the prior year. - $600 million for pay-related pressures (parental leave, severance, etc.). - About $1.9 billion toward public service insurance and benefits. - Unused funds generally expire (“lapse”) at year-end. For the two-year items (CBSA and CRA), funds can be spent up to March 31, 2027. - This bill does not change tax rates or most legislated benefit payments (those are set by other laws). It authorizes the “voted” spending needed to run programs and services. ## Proponents' View - Keeps essential services running across the country by giving departments the funds they need on time. - Supports priorities like health protection, housing, infrastructure, Indigenous services, defence, and veterans’ care. - Provides stability for big service agencies (CRA, CBSA) by allowing two-year funding for complex projects and staffing. - Includes prudent tools like a contingency fund and carry-forwards to handle emergencies and routine budget timing. - Writes off long-uncollectable student debts to keep the government’s books accurate and transparent. - Sets clear limits and lapsing rules, which help control costs and improve accountability. ## Opponents' View - The overall amount is very large, adding to total government spending; critics worry about pressure on deficits and debt. - Central funds (contingencies and carry-forwards) give flexibility but reduce line-by-line detail at the time of approval. - The bill’s size and complexity make thorough scrutiny hard; some items were already advanced by special warrants before Parliament voted. - Two-year spending for some agencies may lessen annual oversight. - Some allocations to Crown corporations (for example, CBC/Radio‑Canada, Canada Post, VIA Rail) or international contributions may be seen as too high or not targeted enough. - The bill authorizes spending but does not spell out outcomes, so results will depend on later implementation and oversight.

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

## Summary This bill requires the federal government to create a national strategy to improve how Canada forecasts floods and droughts. It tasks the Minister of the Environment to lead, consult widely, assess needs and benefits, and propose a cooperative national forecasting service. It sets deadlines to table the strategy in Parliament and later report on its effectiveness (s.3, s.4, s.5). - Develop a national strategy with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, universities, and industry, including insurers (s.3(1)-(2)). - Assess needs for national coordination, new investment, and new technology in forecasting (s.3(3)(a)). - Assess the need for models that identify properties and infrastructure at flood risk (s.3(3)(b)). - Assess opportunities to meet short- and long-term information needs across Canada, including current and future floodplain mapping (s.3(3)(c)). - Prepare a proposal for a cooperative national hydrology and water resources forecasting service based on the existing federal–provincial model (s.3(3)(d)). - Table the strategy within 2 years of the Act coming into force, publish it, and table a 5-year effectiveness report (s.4(1)-(2), s.5(1)-(2)). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate changes to insurance, building codes, or flood maps. The bill sets a planning process, not new rules (s.3). - You may see better flood and drought information in the future if governments act on the strategy’s proposal (s.3(3)(c)-(d)). - Farmers and rural landowners - The strategy will consider short- and long-term drought and flood forecasts that could support planting, water use, and risk planning. It does not fund new services by itself (s.3(3)(c)). - Businesses and insurers - Insurers and other industries will be consulted. The strategy will assess risk modeling that could inform underwriting and supply-chain planning, but there is no immediate change to data access or rules (s.3(2), s.3(3)(b)-(c)). - Local governments - Municipalities will be consulted and could gain access to more consistent forecasts and proposed tools for future floodplain delineation. No mandates or costs are imposed by this bill (s.3(2)-(3)). - Indigenous communities - Indigenous governing bodies will be consulted to ensure the strategy meets their information needs for flood and drought planning (s.3(2)-(3)). - Timeline - Strategy due within 2 years after the Act comes into force; online publication within 10 days of tabling (s.4(1)-(2)). - Effectiveness report due within 5 years after the strategy is tabled; online publication within 10 days of tabling (s.5(1)-(2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill authorizes development of a strategy and reports. It does not appropriate funds or create new programs (s.3, s.4, s.5). - Federal departments will incur planning and consultation costs to draft the strategy and reports; amounts are not stated. Data unavailable. - Any future spending to build a national forecasting service would depend on separate approvals; this Act only requires a proposal (s.3(3)(d)). ## Proponents' View - National coordination can reduce gaps between provinces and speed warnings, since current systems operate separately with limited federal support (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)). - Advanced models need shared data and computing power; a national approach can integrate weather, snowpack, glacier, lake, and streamflow data (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)). - Risk mapping for properties and infrastructure would help communities, farmers, and insurers plan and price risk more accurately (s.3(3)(b)-(c)). - Canadian universities already have strong models; a national strategy can apply them at scale in Canada rather than abroad (Preamble; s.3(3)(c)). - Clear deadlines and a 5‑year effectiveness review create accountability without committing funds before analysis is complete (s.4(1), s.5(1)). ## Opponents' View - Overlap and jurisdiction risk: Provinces now do forecasting; a federal strategy could duplicate work or strain federal‑provincial roles (Preamble; s.3(1)-(2)). - Cost uncertainty: Building national systems with supercomputers and extensive observations could be expensive; the bill provides no cost estimate or funding plan (Preamble; s.3(3)(a)). Data unavailable. - Implementation risk: Success depends on voluntary cooperation from many parties; the Act only requires tabling reports and has no enforcement tools if deadlines slip or partners disagree (s.3(2)-(3), s.4, s.5). - Indirect impacts: Future floodplain delineation and property‑level risk modeling, if later adopted, could affect zoning and insurance. The bill does not address how such changes would be managed (s.3(3)(b)-(c)). - Timing trade‑off: A 2‑year planning window delays near‑term upgrades; rushing complex national systems could also reduce quality (s.4(1)).

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

## Summary This bill amends Canada’s Criminal Code to create specific offences for intimate partner violence, raise some penalties, and change procedures for arrest, bail, and seized property. It also classifies all murders of an intimate partner as first-degree murder. - Creates intimate partner–specific offences for criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon/causing bodily harm (including choking), and aggravated assault, with higher maximum penalties than general offences (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268). - Makes murder of an intimate partner first-degree murder, regardless of planning or deliberation (s. 231(3.1)). - Bars police from releasing a person arrested for an intimate partner offence if they have a prior intimate partner conviction within 5 years or are already on release for an intimate partner offence (added after s. 499). - Lets courts order up to 7 days of custody for a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage of proceedings (added after s. 523). - Extends default detention of seized property from 3 months to 1 year, allows extensions up to 2 years, requires notice of the right to challenge, and allows some hearings without notice and in private (s. 490(2)-(3.3)). ## What it means for you - Households and intimate partners - More charges tailored to intimate partner violence, with higher maximum prison terms, including up to 10 years for criminal harassment and assault, 12 years for assault with a weapon/causing bodily harm, and 14 years for aggravated assault (added after ss. 264, 266, 267, 268). - All murders of an intimate partner treated as first-degree murder, which carries life imprisonment with 25 years before parole eligibility under existing law (s. 231(3.1)). - Judges may order a 7-day custody assessment to evaluate reoffending risk when deciding bail and conditions (added after s. 523). - Accused persons in intimate partner cases - New intimate partner–specific charges with higher maximum penalties than general offences (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268). - Police cannot release you after arrest if you had an intimate partner conviction in the past 5 years or were already on release for an intimate partner offence; you must appear before a justice for a bail decision (added after s. 499). - You may be detained up to 7 days for a risk-of-reoffending assessment at any stage, on a judge’s motion, or on request by the prosecutor or the alleged victim (added after s. 523). - Police and prosecutors - Must hold certain suspects for a bail hearing in intimate partner cases with recent prior convictions or current release status (added after s. 499). - Must give notice within 30 days to the owner of seized property about the right to challenge detention (s. 490(3.2)). - May seek to extend detention of seized items up to 2 years and, if notice would jeopardize an investigation, may proceed without notice and in camera (s. 490(2)-(3.3)). - Courts - Will handle more bail hearings in intimate partner cases due to limits on police release (added after s. 499). - May order risk-of-reoffending assessments with up to 7 days of custody and must bring the accused back “as soon as practicable” after completion (added after s. 523). - Will process longer default detention and extension orders for seized property and may proceed without notice and in private where justified (s. 490(2)-(3.3)). - People whose property is seized - Default detention of seized items increases from 3 months to 1 year; total extensions may reach 2 years, subject to court orders (s. 490(2)-(3)). - You should receive notice within 30 days about your right to challenge, but notice can be skipped if it would jeopardize an investigation; a judge can then hear the matter without you and in private (s. 490(3.2)-(3.3)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - Data unavailable. - The bill contains no explicit appropriations or fees. - Procedural changes could affect costs: - Added 7-day risk-of-reoffending assessments may increase custody days and assessment workload (added after s. 523). - Limits on police release may increase bail hearings and short-term detention (added after s. 499). - Higher maximum penalties could affect sentence lengths, but the bill sets maximums, not mandatory minimums (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268). - Longer detention of seized property may increase storage and handling periods (s. 490(2)-(3)). ## Proponents' View - Strengthens accountability for intimate partner violence by creating tailored offences with higher maximum penalties, signaling greater seriousness (added after ss. 264, 264.1, 266, 267, 268). - Ensures the most serious penalty framework for intimate partner murder by classifying it as first-degree in all cases (s. 231(3.1)). - Enhances victim safety by preventing police release of higher-risk accused (recent conviction or already on release), ensuring a prompt judicial bail review (added after s. 499). - Improves bail decisions through evidence-based risk-of-reoffending assessments, available at any stage and on request by the prosecutor or the intimate partner (added after s. 523). - Supports effective investigations by allowing seized property to be held longer when needed, while preserving owners’ rights through a 30-day notice of the right to challenge (s. 490(2)-(3.2)). ## Opponents' View - Duplicates existing offences (criminal harassment, uttering threats, assault) and mainly raises maximum penalties, which may add complexity without clear impact on sentencing outcomes (compare existing ss. 264–268 with new intimate partner–specific provisions added after those sections). - Classifying all intimate partner murders as first-degree removes case-by-case assessment of planning and deliberation and guarantees 25-year parole ineligibility, even where facts might otherwise support second-degree (s. 231(3.1)). - Mandatory hold for some accused after arrest could increase pre-trial detention and court workload for bail hearings without a demonstrated safety benefit in all cases (added after s. 499). - Up to 7 days of detention for risk assessments at any stage may extend custody for people not yet convicted and strain assessment capacity, potentially delaying proceedings (added after s. 523). - Extending default detention of seized property to 1 year (and up to 2 years total) and allowing ex parte, in camera hearings can reduce transparency and delay property return, even to lawful owners (s. 490(2)-(3.3)).

Appropriation Act No. 2, 2025-26

## Summary This bill approves extra funding for the federal government for the 2025–26 fiscal year. It authorizes up to $8.58 billion from the federal government’s main bank account (the Consolidated Revenue Fund) to cover costs not already approved. Most of the money goes to National Defence and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). The authority takes effect as of April 1, 2025. - Total new funding: about $8.58 billion based on the first in‑year update to the budget plan (called Supplementary Estimates A). - Department of National Defence: about $8.21 billion for operations, equipment, and grants/contributions. - Communications Security Establishment (Canada’s signals intelligence and cyber security agency): about $370 million for program costs. - Defence can enter into long‑term contracts up to about $86.76 billion, with roughly $52.95 billion expected to be paid in future years. - Defence and CSE can re‑spend revenue they earn from their own operations this year to offset their costs. - Allows routine accounting adjustments after year‑end to close the books, without new cash payments. ## What it means for you - General public - No direct change to taxes or personal benefits. This is a funding bill to keep approved federal activities running. - More resources for national defence and cyber security, which can affect safety, military readiness, and protection of government systems. - Military members and families - More funding for operations, training, and support activities. Specific programs are not listed here, but the money covers day‑to‑day operating costs and some equipment purchases. - Businesses and organizations - Potential opportunities for contracts or contributions tied to defence equipment, services, supplies, or facilities. - Some agreements may span multiple years, since the bill lets Defence commit to long‑term contracts, with many payments due later. - Transparency and timing - Spending is tied to items listed in the government’s in‑year estimates and must follow any conditions set there. - Some non‑cash accounting entries can be finalized after the fiscal year ends, which helps ensure accurate public accounts. ## Expenses Estimated annual cost: about CAD $8.58 billion. - Department of National Defence: about $8.21 billion - Operating costs: about $3.97 billion - Capital (equipment and infrastructure): about $0.80 billion - Grants and contributions (including support related to defence equipment, services, supplies, or facilities): about $3.44 billion - Communications Security Establishment: about $370 million for program expenditures - Additional authority: Defence may enter into contracts up to about $86.76 billion in total commitments for this cycle, with an estimated $52.95 billion to be paid in future years. This is permission to commit, not extra cash this year. ## Proponents' View - Ensures the military and cyber security agencies have the funds they need to operate and respond to threats. - Updates the budget mid‑year to reflect new needs and timing changes, which keeps services running smoothly. - Allows long‑term contracts so Defence can plan major projects and upgrades over several years. - Lets departments re‑spend revenue they earn from operations in the same year, improving efficiency. - Includes standard controls: money must be used only for the stated purposes and follow conditions in the estimates. ## Opponents' View - Adds a large amount of in‑year spending, which could strain the budget if not offset elsewhere. - Much of the money is grouped under broad votes, which can make it hard for the public to see project‑level details. - Authority to make large future commitments may limit flexibility for future budgets. - Increased funding for intelligence and cyber agencies may raise transparency and privacy concerns for some, even if oversight rules are unchanged. - Risk that long‑term defence projects face delays or cost overruns, reducing value for money.