## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 827 · Agreed To · June 17, 2024
Division 826 · Negatived · June 17, 2024
Division 811 · Agreed To · June 11, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 651 · Agreed To · February 28, 2024
Division 426 · Agreed To · October 18, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 904 · Agreed To · November 28, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 430 · Agreed To · October 25, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 650 · Agreed To · February 28, 2024
Division 623 · Agreed To · January 31, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 622 · Agreed To · January 31, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 909 · Negatived · December 4, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 789 · Agreed To · May 29, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 758 · Agreed To · May 8, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 809 · Agreed To · June 11, 2024
Division 806 · Agreed To · June 10, 2024
Division 805 · Negatived · June 10, 2024
Division 795 · Agreed To · June 4, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 621 · Agreed To · January 31, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 812 · Agreed To · June 12, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 801 · Agreed To · June 5, 2024
Division 643 · Agreed To · February 14, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 802 · Agreed To · June 5, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 864 · Agreed To · September 25, 2024
Division 863 · Agreed To · September 25, 2024
Division 862 · Negatived · September 25, 2024
Division 439 · Agreed To · November 1, 2023
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 794 · Agreed To · June 3, 2024
Division 792 · Agreed To · May 30, 2024
Division 791 · Negatived · May 30, 2024
Division 753 · Agreed To · May 7, 2024
Division 752 · Negatived · May 7, 2024
Division 751 · Agreed To · May 6, 2024
## Summary This bill requires the federal Minister of Finance to move forward on “consumer-led banking” (open banking: consumer‑authorized sharing of your financial data) by setting public deadlines and reports. It does not create new consumer rights or change bank rules. It creates a timetable and accountability steps for the government to publish an implementation plan and introduce a separate bill. - Requires the Minister to table an open banking implementation plan in Parliament within 30 days after the Act takes effect (Implementation plan). - Sets a 6‑month window to introduce a full open banking bill; if missed, the Minister must publicly explain the delay and give a new timeline (Introduction of bill). - No direct changes to bank fees, products, privacy rules, or data‑sharing practices in this bill. - No fines, new regulators, or funding authorizations in this bill. - Preamble cites expected benefits of open banking (e.g., more competition, faster credit decisions), but these are not enacted here (Preamble). ## What it means for you - Households - No immediate changes to your bank accounts, fees, or privacy rights. The bill only triggers a public plan and possibly a future bill. - You would be able to read the government’s implementation plan within 30 days after the Act comes into force (Implementation plan). - Small and medium-sized businesses - No direct changes now. The government must publish its plan and, within 6 months, introduce an implementing bill or publicly explain delays (Implementation plan; Introduction of bill). - Workers in finance and fintech - No new obligations or accreditation rules yet. The plan could signal upcoming roles, standards, and timelines, but details would be in the future bill (Implementation plan). - Financial institutions and third‑party providers - No compliance requirements are created by this bill. It sets expectations that an implementing bill is coming within 6 months or a delay report will be tabled (Introduction of bill). - Local and provincial governments - No direct impact or mandates. - Service users and advocates - Clear opportunity to review and respond to the government’s published plan and any follow‑on bill; no immediate service changes. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No appropriations, taxes, or fees are specified in the bill text (Short title; Implementation plan; Introduction of bill). - Administrative costs to draft and table documents are implied but not quantified. Data unavailable. - No fiscal note identified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Creates clear accountability: forces a public implementation plan within 30 days and a public explanation if a full bill is not introduced within 6 months (Implementation plan; Introduction of bill). - Advances long‑running work: references the federal Advisory Committee (2018–2021) and an open banking lead who completed consultations and designed a framework, indicating readiness to proceed (Preamble). - Targets consumer benefits cited in the preamble: more competition, potential for lower fees and interest rates, and better access to credit using transaction history, especially for newcomers and thin‑file consumers (Preamble). - Supports small business efficiency claims in the preamble: faster loan decisions and automated tools for bills, invoices, payroll, and taxes (Preamble). - Increases transparency: requires the Minister to explain any delay and set a new timeline, enabling Parliamentary and public oversight (Introduction of bill). ## Opponents' View - No substantive policy in the bill: sets deadlines but does not define data standards, accreditation, liability, privacy protections, or enforcement, leaving key risks unaddressed until a future bill (Bill text). - Weak enforcement: if the 6‑month deadline is missed, the only consequence is a delay report; there are no penalties or binding remedies (Introduction of bill). - Process duplication: the preamble notes the government already has an open banking lead and a designed framework; new statutory deadlines may add paperwork without accelerating outcomes (Preamble). - Implementation risk: rapid timelines could compress stakeholder consultations on complex issues like security, consent, and dispute resolution, which this bill does not specify (Bill text). - Benefits not guaranteed: the preamble’s claims about lower fees and faster credit are aspirations, not mandates or funded programs in this bill; impacts depend entirely on the future implementing legislation (Preamble).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 671 · Agreed To · March 20, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 788 · Agreed To · May 29, 2024
Division 787 · Negatived · May 29, 2024
Division 772 · Agreed To · May 27, 2024
Division 750 · Agreed To · May 2, 2024
Division 420 · Agreed To · October 17, 2023
Division 419 · Negatived · October 17, 2023
Division 418 · Agreed To · October 16, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 649 · Agreed To · February 28, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 785 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 784 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 783 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 782 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 781 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 780 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 779 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 777 · Agreed To · May 28, 2024
Division 776 · Negatived · May 28, 2024
Division 764 · Agreed To · May 21, 2024
Division 763 · Negatived · May 21, 2024
Division 759 · Agreed To · May 9, 2024
Division 668 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 667 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 666 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 665 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 664 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 663 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 662 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 661 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 660 · Agreed To · March 18, 2024
Division 659 · Negatived · March 18, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 422 · Agreed To · October 18, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 34 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 33 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 32 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 31 · Negatived · June 20, 2025
Division 30 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 29 · Negatived · June 20, 2025
Division 28 · Negatived · June 20, 2025
Division 27 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 26 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 25 · Agreed To · June 20, 2025
Division 24 · Negatived · June 20, 2025
Division 23 · Negatived · June 20, 2025
Division 13 · Agreed To · June 16, 2025
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 410 · Negatived · September 26, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 855 · Negatived · September 18, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 644 · Agreed To · February 14, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 767 · Negatived · May 22, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 642 · Agreed To · February 14, 2024
Division 624 · Agreed To · January 31, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 738 · Agreed To · April 15, 2024
Division 737 · Negatived · April 15, 2024
Division 736 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 735 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 733 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 732 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 731 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 730 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 729 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 728 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 727 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 726 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 724 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 723 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 722 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 721 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 720 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 719 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 718 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 717 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 716 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 715 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 714 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 713 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 712 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 711 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 710 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 709 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 708 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 707 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 706 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 705 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 704 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 703 · Agreed To · April 11, 2024
Division 702 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 701 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 700 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 699 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 698 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 697 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 696 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 695 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 694 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 693 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 692 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 691 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 690 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 689 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 688 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
Division 687 · Negatived · April 11, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 774 · Agreed To · May 27, 2024
Division 647 · Agreed To · February 27, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 847 · Agreed To · June 19, 2024
Division 845 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 844 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 843 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 841 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 840 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 839 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 838 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 837 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 836 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 835 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 834 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 833 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 832 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 831 · Negatived · June 18, 2024
Division 825 · Agreed To · June 17, 2024
Division 766 · Agreed To · May 22, 2024
Division 765 · Negatived · May 22, 2024
Division 761 · Agreed To · May 21, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 814 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
## Summary This bill gives the federal government authority to spend up to CAD $117,781,852,267 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, based on the 2024–25 Main Estimates. Most items are regular operating, capital, grants, and contributions for departments, agencies, and Crown corporations. The authority takes effect retroactively to April 1, 2024. Some items may be paid and used through March 31, 2026 under Schedule 2 (mainly Canada Revenue Agency and Canada Border Services Agency) (Appropriation amount clause; Effective date (2); Schedule 1; Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Funds day‑to‑day operations of federal services (e.g., CRA, CBSA, CATSA, RCMP, Veterans Affairs) (Schedules 1–2). - Provides large transfer programs, including Indigenous Services, Employment and Social Development, Health, and Infrastructure (Schedule 1). - Supports housing programs via CMHC and transport services like VIA Rail and airport security (Schedule 1). - Includes central Treasury Board votes for contingencies, carry‑forwards, and paylists to manage government‑wide needs (Schedule 1). - Does not change taxes or create new programs by itself; it authorizes spending for items listed in the Estimates (Schedule 1). ## What it means for you - Households - Federal services continue at normal funding levels through March 31, 2025. This includes tax and benefit administration (CRA) and border and airport screening (CBSA, CATSA) (Schedule 2; Schedule 1). - Health‑related federal programs and grants remain funded (Health, Public Health Agency of Canada) (Schedule 1). - No changes to tax rates or new penalties are created by this bill. It only authorizes spending already set out in the Estimates (Schedules 1–2). - Travelers - Airport security screening remains funded (Canadian Air Transport Security Authority: $1,194,373,969) (Schedule 1). - Border services continue operations and capital projects (Canada Border Services Agency: $2,434,577,084, usable through March 31, 2026) (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Passenger rail services receive funding (VIA Rail: $1,159,349,066) (Schedule 1). - Veterans - Programs, benefits, and services continue to be funded (Veterans Affairs: $6,168,884,866) (Schedule 1). - Indigenous communities - Program and service delivery remain funded (Indigenous Services: $20,927,551,435) and claims/relations activities continue (Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: $10,906,762,594) (Schedule 1). - Students and researchers - Federal research granting councils are funded (CIHR: $1,360,751,131; NSERC: $1,376,768,921; SSHRC: $1,193,127,536) (Schedule 1). - Businesses and cultural sector - Trade and development programs continue (Global Affairs Canada grants and contributions: $5,884,106,557 for specified purposes, including trade and investment promotion) (Schedule 1). - Arts and culture grants remain funded (Canada Council for the Arts: $363,758,160; CBC/Radio‑Canada: $1,383,237,411) (Schedule 1). - Local governments and infrastructure users - Federal infrastructure contribution programs continue (Office of Infrastructure of Canada: $5,817,761,594) (Schedule 1). - Environment and parks operations and contributions continue (Environment: $2,638,596,171; Parks Canada: $1,000,738,403) (Schedule 1). - Timeline and mechanics - Spending authority is effective April 1, 2024. Most items must be charged to 2024–25; some CRA and CBSA items can be used through March 31, 2026 (Effective date (2); Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Unused Schedule 2 amounts lapse at the end of 2025–26; Schedule 1 lapses at the normal close of 2024–25, subject to accounting adjustments allowed in the Act (Adjustments in accounts — Schedules 1–2). ## Expenses Estimated gross appropriations authorized: CAD $117,781,852,267 (FY2024–25), with certain Schedule 2 items usable through March 31, 2026. - Totals - Schedule 1 (chargeable to 2024–25): $112,465,015,938 (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 (chargeable to 2024–25 and 2025–26): $5,316,836,329 (Schedule 2). - Aggregate authorized by the Act: $117,781,852,267 (Appropriation amount clause). Key allocations (selected) Item | Amount | Fiscal timing | Source ---|---:|---|--- National Defence | $28,792,963,081 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Indigenous Services | $20,927,551,435 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs | $10,906,762,594 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Employment and Social Development | $11,482,355,998 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Health | $8,398,015,720 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (central votes) | $9,310,377,653 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Infrastructure (Office of Infrastructure of Canada) | $5,817,761,594 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | $5,620,208,332 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Veterans Affairs | $6,168,884,866 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Canada Revenue Agency | $4,654,538,023 | 2024–25–2025–26 | Schedule 2 Canada Border Services Agency | $2,434,577,084 | 2024–25–2025–26 | Schedule 2 CATSA (airport security) | $1,194,373,969 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 VIA Rail Canada | $1,159,349,066 | 2024–25 | Schedule 1 Notes - Many organizations have authority to “net vote” by spending certain revenues to offset costs under the Financial Administration Act s.29.1(2)(a), as listed in their votes (e.g., Health, RCMP, Shared Services, others) (Schedule 1). - Treasury Board central votes include contingencies ($750,000,000), operating carry‑forward ($3,000,000,000), capital carry‑forward ($750,000,000), paylist requirements ($600,000,000), public service insurance ($3,843,672,789), and government‑wide initiatives ($18,500,000) (Schedule 1). ## Proponents' View - Maintains core public services without interruption through March 31, 2025; authority is retroactive to April 1, 2024 to avoid gaps (Effective date (2)). - Funds high‑priority areas that affect daily life, such as health (Health: $8.398B), housing (CMHC: $5.620B), transportation (VIA Rail: $1.159B; CATSA: $1.194B), and public safety (RCMP: $4.253B) (Schedule 1). - Supports Indigenous programs and reconciliation work at scale (Indigenous Services: $20.928B; Crown‑Indigenous Relations: $10.907B) (Schedule 1). - Enables research, innovation, and skills via the granting councils (CIHR $1.361B; NSERC $1.377B; SSHRC $1.193B) (Schedule 1). - Provides flexibility to manage government‑wide pressures through Treasury Board central votes, reducing the need for multiple stand‑alone bills for contingencies, carry‑forwards, and paylists (Schedule 1). - Allows CRA and CBSA items to be used through March 31, 2026, aiding multi‑year implementation and avoiding project delays (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). ## Opponents' View - Size and breadth of voted appropriations ($117.782B) may hinder detailed parliamentary scrutiny, since many lines reference “the grants listed in any of the Estimates” without program‑level detail in the bill text (Appropriation amount clause; Schedule 1). - Retroactive effect to April 1, 2024 means spending can proceed before final passage, which some view as reducing transparency (Effective date (2)). - Treasury Board central votes give broad discretion to reallocate or supplement other appropriations (e.g., Contingencies $750M; Operating Carry‑Forward $3B; Capital Carry‑Forward $750M; Paylist $600M), which may dilute direct oversight of specific programs (Schedule 1). - Numerous “net voting” authorities let departments spend revenues to offset costs (FAA s.29.1(2)(a)), which can complicate tracking gross versus net spending and comparisons year‑over‑year (Schedule 1). - Schedule 2 funds can be paid and applied up to March 31, 2026 and then lapse, allowing re‑profiling across fiscal years; critics may see this as weakening annual control of expenditures (Schedule 2; Order of payment (2)). - Defence vote includes authority for total commitments of $74,200,898,576, with an estimated $45,516,020,917 coming due in future years, creating future‑year obligations and potential delivery risks if projects slip (Schedule 1).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 820 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
Division 819 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
Division 818 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
## Summary This bill authorizes the federal government to spend up to CAD $11,187,495,220 for 2024–2025, as set out in Supplementary Estimates (A). It covers operating costs, grants, contributions, and some capital, for departments and agencies across the Government of Canada. The authority is deemed to take effect on April 1, 2024, and applies to items not already funded in the Main Estimates (Schedule; Supplementary Estimates (A) 2024–25; Bill: Effective date). - Authorizes $5.62 billion for Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and $2.16 billion for Indigenous Services (Schedule). - Provides $951.55 million for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada operations and contributions (Schedule). - Funds $604.93 million in Transport Canada contributions and $75.70 million for VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. (Schedule). - Allocates $528.25 million for Veterans Affairs operations and $342.73 million for Health contributions and operations (Schedule). - Sets a $250.00 million Treasury Board contingency for urgent or unforeseen needs (Schedule; TBS Vote 5a). ## What it means for you - Households - No new taxes or fees are created by this bill. It only authorizes spending (Bill: Grant of $11.19B). - Existing federal services and grants can continue or expand where listed, effective April 1, 2024–March 31, 2025 (Bill: Effective date; Schedule). - Indigenous peoples and communities - Significant funding flows to Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($5.62B) and Indigenous Services ($2.16B) for operations and grants/contributions during 2024–2025 (Schedule). - Exact program-by-program amounts are set in Supplementary Estimates (A) and departmental announcements (Data unavailable here). - Newcomers and refugees - Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada receives $951.55M for operations and contributions, which can support processing and settlement-related agreements in 2024–2025 (Schedule; IRCC Votes 1a, 10a). - Travelers and commuters - Transport Canada receives $604.93M in contributions that can fund transport programs and projects in 2024–2025 (Schedule). - VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. gets $75.70M for operating and capital needs tied to rail initiatives in 2024–2025 (Schedule). - Veterans and their families - Veterans Affairs receives $528.25M in operating funds to run its programs and services in 2024–2025 (Schedule). - Renters and homeowners - CMHC is reimbursed $212.37M for loans forgiven, grants, contributions, and related costs under the National Housing Act and other authorities in 2024–2025 (Schedule; CMHC Vote 1a). - Researchers and cultural workers - NSERC gets $9.10M in grants; Telefilm Canada receives $49.48M; the National Arts Centre receives $2.33M for operations, all in 2024–2025 (Schedule). - SSHRC appears in the schedule but the amount is not shown in the provided text (Data unavailable). - Businesses and non‑profits - Natural Resources ($213.14M in contributions), Transport ($604.93M in contributions), PacifiCan ($1.90M in contributions), and other departments may open or expand grant/contribution programs in 2024–2025 (Schedule). - Provinces, territories, municipalities - Departments with contribution authorities (e.g., Transport, Health, Indigenous portfolios) can transfer funds through existing agreements in 2024–2025 (Schedule; items specifying “Contributions”). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $11,187,495,220 (FY2024–2025). - Source: Supplementary Estimates (A) 2024–25; enacted via Appropriation Act No. 3, 2024–25 (Bill: $11.19B grant; Schedule). - Timing: Deemed effective April 1, 2024; can record year‑end adjustments before Public Accounts are tabled (Bill: Effective date; Adjustments in accounts). - Contingency: Treasury Board may address urgent/unforeseen items up to $250,000,000 within departmental legal mandates (Schedule; TBS Vote 5a). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source --- | --- | --- | --- Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs | $5,617,281,334 | One‑time (FY2024–2025) | Schedule (Votes 1a, 10a) Indigenous Services | $2,164,956,235 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 10a) Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada | $951,546,152 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 10a) Transport Canada | $604,928,802 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 10a) Veterans Affairs | $528,253,666 | One‑time | Schedule (Vote 1a) Health | $342,727,957 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 10a) Treasury Board Secretariat (incl. contingencies) | $252,414,728 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 5a) Natural Resources | $213,144,198 | One‑time | Schedule (Votes 1a, 5a, 10a) Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) | $212,374,706 | One‑time | Schedule (Vote 1a) VIA HFR – VIA TGF Inc. | $75,700,000 | One‑time | Schedule (Vote 1a) All other listed items (multiple orgs) | $224,167,442 | One‑time | Schedule (various) Total authorized (this Act) | $11,187,495,220 | One‑time | Bill; Schedule ## Proponents' View - Ensures government services and payments continue without interruption by providing mid‑year authorities aligned to Supplementary Estimates (A) (Bill; Schedule). - Targets major priorities, including Indigenous communities, with $5.62B to Crown‑Indigenous Relations and $2.16B to Indigenous Services (Schedule). - Supports immigration operations and related contributions with $951.55M, helping manage high application volumes and settlement partnerships (Schedule; IRCC Votes 1a, 10a). - Advances transport initiatives, including $604.93M in contributions at Transport Canada and $75.70M for VIA HFR projects (Schedule). - Provides flexibility to address urgent or unforeseen needs through a $250.00M Treasury Board contingency, within legal mandates (Schedule; TBS Vote 5a). - Backs housing and cultural sectors via CMHC reimbursements ($212.37M) and funding for Telefilm ($49.48M) and the National Arts Centre ($2.33M) (Schedule). ## Opponents' View - Scale and timing: Adds $11.19B in voted authorities mid‑year, which can complicate fiscal planning; the bill itself does not show how this fits the overall budget balance (Bill; Schedule). Assumption: fiscal impact depends on broader revenues and spending not in this bill. - Limited line‑by‑line detail: Many votes are broad “grants and contributions” without program‑level breakdowns in the bill text, reducing parliamentary visibility at this stage (Schedule). Assumption: details reside in Supplementary Estimates (A). - Retroactive effect: Deeming all items effective April 1, 2024 reduces ex‑ante scrutiny of spending decisions already underway (Bill: Effective date). - Contingency risks: The $250.00M Treasury Board contingency could dilute program‑specific oversight if used widely, even though it must remain within legal mandates (Schedule; TBS Vote 5a). - Year‑end accounting: Allowing adjustments after year‑end until Public Accounts are tabled may reduce timely transparency for citizens tracking in‑year spending (Bill: Adjustments in accounts).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 824 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
Division 823 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
Division 822 · Agreed To · June 13, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 853 · Negatived · June 19, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 852 · Agreed To · June 19, 2024
Division 851 · Agreed To · June 19, 2024
Division 414 · Agreed To · September 27, 2023
## Summary This bill, the Clean Coasts Act, amends two federal laws to reduce marine pollution and derelict vessels. It tightens the ban on dumping at sea under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), and adds a new offence under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act (WAHVA) to stop owners from offloading vessels to buyers who cannot maintain or safely dispose of them. - Expands who can be held responsible for dumping at sea by adding liability for a “ship” and for those who “allow the disposal” of substances in Canadian waters (CEPA s.125(1) amendment). - Creates a new offence: vessel owners cannot transfer a vessel if they know, or are reckless about whether, the buyer lacks the ability, resources, or intent to prevent it from becoming wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Adds the new offence to WAHVA’s penalties section, making it enforceable with existing fines and other sanctions (WAHVA s.90(1)(a) amendment). - Applies in waters under Canadian jurisdiction listed in CEPA s.122(2)(a)-(e) (e.g., internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone) (CEPA s.125(1) amendment). ## What it means for you - Households (recreational boat owners and sellers) - If you sell a boat, you must not transfer it to someone who lacks the ability, resources, or intent to maintain, operate, or dispose of it safely; doing so becomes an offence if you know this or are reckless about it (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Practical implication: sellers may need to do basic due diligence (e.g., proof of moorage, insurance, competency) to avoid being “reckless.” The bill does not define specific documents (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Effective date: on Royal Assent, since the bill contains no delayed coming-into-force clause. Data unavailable on the exact date. - Workers (masters and crews of vessels) - “No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal” of substances in Canadian waters unless authorized; this broadens who can be held liable for dumping (CEPA s.125(1) amendment). - Practical implication: shipboard policies may need updates to ensure no unauthorized disposal occurs, including waste handled by contractors. - Businesses (commercial shipowners, marine brokers, lenders, marinas) - Increased liability risk for unauthorized dumping at sea, including for a ship that “allows” disposal; owners and operators may need stronger controls and recordkeeping (CEPA s.125(1) amendment). - Brokers and lenders may face higher due diligence expectations when arranging transfers, especially for older or end‑of‑life vessels, to avoid facilitating prohibited transfers (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Marinas and storage yards may see more inquiries about lawful end‑of‑life disposal options. Data unavailable on capacity impacts. - Local governments and coastal communities - Potential reduction in derelict and abandoned vessels if risky transfers decline (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Possible decrease in local cleanup requests or costs, but the bill provides no funding. Data unavailable on net fiscal impact. - Service users (fishers, recreational users) - Potential for cleaner waters and fewer hazards from derelict vessels and illegal dumping. Magnitude of change depends on enforcement and compliance. Data unavailable. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations or new fees in the bill text. Enforcement would use existing CEPA and WAHVA frameworks (Bill text; CEPA s.125(1) amendment; WAHVA new s.34.1; WAHVA s.90(1)(a) amendment). - Administrative and enforcement costs for Environment and Climate Change Canada and Transport Canada: Data unavailable. - Potential fine revenue from new or expanded offences: Data unavailable. - No official fiscal note identified: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Closes a loophole that allowed owners to “dump by sale” by transferring problem vessels to buyers who cannot care for them, reducing abandoned and hazardous vessels (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Strengthens deterrence against marine dumping by making both persons and ships liable for disposing or allowing disposal at sea, improving accountability on board (CEPA s.125(1) amendment). - Uses existing enforcement structures and penalty provisions, limiting the need for new spending (WAHVA s.90(1)(a) amendment). - Protects sensitive marine areas under Canadian jurisdiction, supporting cleaner coasts and safer navigation (CEPA s.125(1) with reference to s.122(2)(a)-(e)). - May lower public cleanup burdens over time by preventing new derelict vessels; exact savings are not quantified (Data unavailable). ## Opponents' View - Creates uncertainty for private sellers: terms like “reckless” and assessing a buyer’s “ability, resources or intent” are not defined, raising risk of disputes and uneven enforcement (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Imposes due diligence costs on small boat owners and brokers, who may need to verify buyer capability without clear statutory guidelines (WAHVA new s.34.1). - Expands liability for shipowners and operators by penalizing those who “allow” disposal, potentially capturing actions by crew or contractors and increasing insurance and compliance costs (CEPA s.125(1) amendment; Data unavailable on costs). - Without added funding or guidance, enforcement capacity may not match the broader offences, limiting effectiveness and creating inconsistency across regions (Data unavailable). - The bill does not specify penalty levels in the amendments; stakeholders may find it hard to assess risk without accessible penalty guidance, even though s.90 applies (WAHVA s.90(1)(a) amendment; Data unavailable on penalty amounts).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 73 · Agreed To · February 25, 2026
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 849 · Agreed To · June 19, 2024
Division 848 · Negatived · June 19, 2024
Division 829 · Agreed To · June 17, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 633 · Agreed To · February 7, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 59 · Agreed To · December 11, 2025
Division 58 · Agreed To · December 11, 2025
Division 57 · Negatived · December 11, 2025
Division 56 · Negatived · December 11, 2025
## Summary This bill would amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act so it does not apply in Quebec. The preamble states that Quebecers form a nation and have the tools to define their identity and protect shared values like the French language, state secularism, and gender equality (Preamble). The operative clause adds a one-line exemption: “This Act does not apply in Quebec” (Bill, after s.2). - Federal multiculturalism policy and duties would no longer apply “in Quebec” (Bill, after s.2). - Federal institutions operating in Quebec would not be bound by the Act’s requirements in Quebec; no change elsewhere in Canada (Bill, after s.2). - Community groups in Quebec that rely on federal multiculturalism authorities may see program rules or funding authority change; details are not in the bill (Data unavailable). - The bill does not change other federal laws, the Charter, or Quebec laws; it only amends the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (Bill, title and clause). - Would take effect when it becomes law (no delayed coming-into-force clause in the bill). ## What it means for you - Households in Quebec: - Federal services delivered in Quebec would no longer follow the Canadian Multiculturalism Act’s policy framework in Quebec once in force (Bill, after s.2). - Other rights and laws remain unchanged because the bill only amends the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (Bill, title and clause). - Community and cultural organizations in Quebec: - Federal multiculturalism program activities that rely on the Act as legal authority may be changed, replaced, or ended in Quebec after the bill takes effect. The bill does not specify which programs or timelines (Data unavailable; Bill, after s.2). - You may need to rely more on Quebec programs or other federal authorities if departments shift their legal basis for grants or services (Data unavailable). - Federal employees and institutions in Quebec: - You would no longer have statutory duties under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act for activities “in Quebec,” such as implementing the federal multiculturalism policy framework there (Bill, after s.2; Canadian Multiculturalism Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.), policy and implementation provisions). - Internal policies, training, outreach, and reporting tied to the Act may be revised for Quebec operations. The bill gives no transition rules or guidance (Data unavailable). - Quebec provincial government: - The exemption would remove the federal multiculturalism statute from applying in Quebec, aligning with the preamble’s view that Quebec defines its own approach to language and secularism (Preamble; Bill, after s.2). - Any federal–provincial collaboration on diversity or integration would need bases other than the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in Quebec (Data unavailable). - Residents outside Quebec: - No change. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act would continue to apply in all other provinces and territories (Bill, after s.2). - Timing: - Effect starts on Royal Assent, since the bill has no delayed coming-into-force clause (Bill, text contains no such clause). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill contains no appropriations, new taxes, or fees; it is a one-line exemption (Bill, after s.2). - No federal fiscal note identified. Potential changes to federal multiculturalism spending in Quebec are not specified (Data unavailable). - Administrative adjustments for federal institutions operating in Quebec are possible; no estimates provided (Data unavailable). ## Proponents' View - Respects Quebec’s nation status and its capacity to define identity, protect French, uphold state secularism, and ensure gender equality, without a federal multiculturalism statute applying in Quebec (Preamble). - Avoids policy overlap by removing the federal multiculturalism framework “in Quebec,” letting Quebec’s own frameworks lead there (Bill, after s.2). - Clarifies that federal institutions need not implement the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in Quebec, reducing duplication with Quebec’s policy model (Bill, after s.2). - Keeps the Act fully in force elsewhere, preserving the existing federal approach in other provinces and territories (Bill, after s.2). ## Opponents' View - Could reduce or end federal multiculturalism-driven supports in Quebec by removing the Act’s framework there, affecting community groups and newcomers that relied on it (Bill, after s.2; impact scale: Data unavailable). - Creates uneven federal obligations across Canada, which may lead to inconsistent service standards and confusion for clients and staff when programs operate both inside and outside Quebec (Bill, after s.2). - Provides no transition plan or guidance for ongoing grants, reporting, or outreach, raising implementation risks for federal departments and funded organizations (Bill is silent on transition). - May weaken federal capacity to promote and report on multiculturalism outcomes in Quebec because statutory duties would no longer apply there (Canadian Multiculturalism Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.), policy and implementation provisions; Bill, after s.2).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 65 · Negatived · February 4, 2026
## Summary Bill C-316 would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to require the Minister of Canadian Heritage to maintain the Court Challenges Program. The program funds court “test cases” (cases meant to clarify the law) of national significance about official language rights and human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill also requires an independent administrator and yearly reporting to Parliament. - Puts the Court Challenges Program into law and requires it to be maintained (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Requires an independent organization to run the program (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Adds an annual report with activities, goals, finances, funded cases, outreach, and counts of denied applications in each component (language rights and human rights) (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)). - Requires the Minister to table the report in both Houses within 15 sitting days (Tabling s.(2)). - Does not change eligibility rules or set any funding amount in the bill text (Bill s.5(a.1)). ## What it means for you - Households and individuals - If you seek to bring a Charter language or human rights case of national significance, you can continue to apply for funding from the program. The bill does not change who can apply or how much funding is available (Bill s.5(a.1)). - “Quasi-constitutional rights” (laws with special status, like human rights and official languages laws) remain within scope for language rights; constitutional human rights are within scope for Charter cases (Bill s.5(a.1)). - The program must publish more information each year through an annual report to Parliament, including the number of denied applications in each component (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)). - Official-language minority communities - The law would confirm ongoing federal support for test cases that clarify and assert language rights (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)). - The annual report must note any outreach and promotional activities with groups affected by funded cases, which may help communities access the program (Annual report s.(1)). - Workers, advocates, and legal clinics - More stability: the program is in statute, not just policy. This can help plan multi‑year test cases (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)). - More transparency on what the program funds, and how many applications are denied in each component (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)). - Businesses and organizations - No direct new duties. Some may be parties to test cases funded by the program. The bill does not change court rules or private rights (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Parliament and the public - You will see a yearly report with activities, goals, finances, a list of funded cases, outreach efforts, and counts of denied applications by component, tabled in both Houses (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1); Tabling s.(2)). - Federal government (Canadian Heritage) - The Minister must ensure an independent organization runs the program and must table the annual report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it (Bill s.5(a.1); Tabling s.(2)). - Courts - No change to court processes. The program’s purpose remains to fund test cases of national significance to clarify rights (Bill s.5(a.1)). Note: Provisions take effect on Royal Assent. The bill text sets no start date beyond that. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - The bill sets no funding amount or appropriation. It requires the Minister to maintain the program and to have it administered independently (Bill s.5(a.1)). - The program already exists; the bill codifies it and adds reporting and tabling duties (Preamble; Annual report s.(1)–(2)). - Any costs for program grants and administration would continue to be set through future budgets and Estimates. Data unavailable. - Added costs for preparing and tabling an annual report are likely administrative. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Stabilizes access to justice by putting a long-standing program in law after past cancellations and restorations, reducing the risk of policy reversals (Preamble; Bill s.5(a.1)). - Helps clarify Charter equality, linguistic, and human rights by funding test cases of national significance that many individuals and communities could not afford (Bill s.5(a.1); Preamble). - Protects program independence by requiring an administrator that is independent of government (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Improves transparency and oversight through an annual report with activities, goals, finances, funded cases, outreach, and counts of denied applications for both components (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)). - Enhances accountability by requiring the Minister to table the report in both Houses, making information public on a set timetable (Tabling s.(2)). ## Opponents' View - No budget caps or performance targets in the bill; spending levels and results remain unspecified in law (Bill s.5(a.1); Annual report s.(1)). - Embedding a grant program in statute limits flexibility to redesign, pause, or wind down the program if priorities change (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Government would fund litigation that can be against itself, which some view as an inappropriate use of public funds (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Key terms such as “national significance” and “quasi-constitutional rights” are not defined in the bill, leaving broad discretion to the administrator and potential inconsistency (Bill s.5(a.1)). - Reporting must include counts of denied applications but not reasons, case outcomes, or equity metrics, which may limit accountability and learning (Annual report s.(1)–(1.1)). - Added reporting and tabling duties may increase administrative burden; the bill provides no resources for this. Data unavailable.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 451 · Agreed To · November 22, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 799 · Agreed To · June 5, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 790 · Negatived · May 29, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 745 · Negatived · May 1, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 409 · Agreed To · September 20, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 740 · Agreed To · April 17, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 741 · Agreed To · April 29, 2024
Division 673 · Agreed To · March 20, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 685 · Negatived · April 10, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 449 · Agreed To · November 20, 2023
Division 444 · Agreed To · November 7, 2023
Division 443 · Negatived · November 7, 2023
Division 442 · Agreed To · November 7, 2023
Division 440 · Agreed To · November 6, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 678 · Agreed To · March 21, 2024
Division 677 · Agreed To · March 21, 2024
Division 676 · Agreed To · March 21, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 682 · Agreed To · March 21, 2024
Division 680 · Agreed To · March 21, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 656 · Agreed To · February 29, 2024
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 627 · Agreed To · February 6, 2024
Division 607 · Agreed To · December 12, 2023
Division 450 · Agreed To · November 21, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 646 · Agreed To · February 15, 2024
Division 645 · Agreed To · February 15, 2024
Division 641 · Agreed To · February 14, 2024
Division 640 · Negatived · February 14, 2024
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 448 · Negatived · November 8, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 606 · Agreed To · December 11, 2023
Division 474 · Agreed To · December 5, 2023
Division 473 · Agreed To · December 5, 2023
Division 472 · Negatived · December 5, 2023
Division 471 · Negatived · December 5, 2023
Division 456 · Agreed To · November 23, 2023
## Summary This is a federal supply bill that adds spending authority for the rest of fiscal year 2023–2024. It approves up to CAD $20,678,755,329 for departments and agencies, based on Supplementary Estimates (B), and makes the funding effective April 1, 2023 (Amount; Effective date; Schedules 1–2). A small portion may be used through March 31, 2025 (Schedule 2; Order of payment). - Keeps federal services running by topping up many department budgets (Schedule 1). - Largest allocations go to Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($9.009 billion) and the Treasury Board Secretariat for compensation and insurance ($2.502 billion) (Schedule 1). - Adds funds for National Defence ($1.403 billion), Immigration ($661.3 million), Foreign Affairs ($803.0 million), Transport ($480.1 million), and others (Schedule 1). - Allows two‑year spending authority for the Canada Border Services Agency ($23.1 million) and the Canada Revenue Agency ($12.5 million) (Schedule 2). - Authorizes payments retroactive to April 1, 2023, with unused two‑year amounts lapsing after March 31, 2025 (Effective date; Schedule 2). ## What it means for you - Households: Most federal programs continue without interruption. This includes immigration services (IRCC contributions $475.168 million), public health programs (PHAC $278.087 million), and veterans’ supports (VAC grants and contributions $35.737 million), effective April 1, 2023 (Schedule 1). - Workers (federal public servants): Funds cover compensation adjustments ($2.090 billion) and public service insurance and benefits ($359.344 million) through the Treasury Board Secretariat (Schedule 1). - Indigenous peoples and communities: Major top‑ups to Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($9.009 billion) and Indigenous Services ($985.183 million) support programs and agreements listed in the Estimates, effective April 1, 2023 (Schedule 1). - Businesses: Continued support for trade, infrastructure, and regional development. Examples include Transport Canada contributions ($271.892 million), Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority ($335.362 million), VIA Rail ($247.111 million), and regional development agencies (e.g., Quebec $100.742 million; ACOA $28.504 million) (Schedule 1). - Travelers and service users: Added funding for airport screening (CATSA $44.786 million) and border operations (CBSA $23.052 million with two‑year authority), which can help maintain service levels (Schedules 1–2). - Local governments and NGOs: Eligible for contribution programs in several portfolios, such as Infrastructure Canada ($250.064 million), Fisheries and Oceans ($192.378 million), and Environment ($7.500 million), subject to program terms in the Estimates (Schedule 1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: CAD $20,678,755,329 (FY2023–2024), plus $35,509,295 available through March 31, 2025. - Total Schedule 1 authority (single‑year): $20,643,246,034 (Schedule 1). - Total Schedule 2 authority (two‑year): $35,509,295 (Schedule 2). - Payments are effective April 1, 2023; Schedule 2 amounts may be applied until March 31, 2025, then lapse (Effective date; Schedule 2). Item | Amount | Frequency | Source ---|---:|---|--- Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs | $9,008,725,804 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Treasury Board Secretariat (incl. compensation and insurance) | $2,502,087,279 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 National Defence | $1,403,482,121 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Indigenous Services | $985,182,765 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development | $803,019,554 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Citizenship and Immigration | $661,277,470 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Transport | $480,108,063 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Employment and Social Development | $416,472,169 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation | $408,566,117 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Fisheries and Oceans | $338,538,897 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority | $335,362,310 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Public Health Agency of Canada | $278,086,924 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Infrastructure Canada | $270,307,698 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 VIA Rail Canada Inc. | $247,111,189 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Public Works and Government Services | $238,367,206 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Health | $223,717,284 | FY2023–2024 | Schedule 1 Canada Border Services Agency | $23,051,792 | FY2023–2025 (two‑year) | Schedule 2 Canada Revenue Agency | $12,457,503 | FY2023–2025 (two‑year) | Schedule 2 ## Proponents' View - Ensures continuity of government services by providing up to $20.679 billion in needed in‑year funding, effective April 1, 2023 (Amount; Effective date). - Targets priority areas with large, quantifiable top‑ups, including $9.009 billion for Crown‑Indigenous Relations, $1.403 billion for National Defence, and $803.0 million for Foreign Affairs (Schedule 1). - Supports public service stability during bargaining and benefits renewal through $2.090 billion for compensation adjustments and $359.344 million for insurance (Schedule 1). - Provides flexibility to complete projects without waste by allowing two‑year authority for select items ($35.509 million total for CBSA and CRA) with clear lapse rules (Schedule 2). - Maintains controls: each item can be used only for the stated purpose; unspent two‑year amounts lapse after March 31, 2025; accounting adjustments are allowed without new cash (Purpose of each item; Adjustments in accounts — Schedules 1–2). ## Opponents' View - Limits real‑time scrutiny: appropriations and transfers are deemed effective as of April 1, 2023, which backdates approval and may reduce Parliament’s leverage over in‑year spending (Effective date; Transfers deemed authorized April 1, 2023). - Transparency concerns: the statute lists votes, not program‑level details; it relies on the Supplementary Estimates for specifics, which can make it hard for the public to trace impacts (Schedules 1–2). - Broad centralized authorities: Treasury Board can supplement other appropriations for government‑wide initiatives and compensation ($17.6 million and $2.090 billion), which concentrates discretion and may blur accountability (Schedule 1). - Delivery risk: two‑year authority can defer activity into the next year; funds not used by March 31, 2025 will lapse, which can create deadline pressure (Schedule 2). - Long‑term commitments: National Defence is authorized to enter total commitments of $43,260,566,476, with an estimated $18,594,771,852 due in future years, without project lists in the bill text (Schedule 1).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 604 · Agreed To · December 7, 2023
Division 603 · Agreed To · December 7, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 479 · Agreed To · December 6, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 480 · Negatived · December 6, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 417 · Agreed To · October 5, 2023
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 415 · Agreed To · September 27, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 434 · Negatived · October 25, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 425 · Negatived · October 18, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 423 · Negatived · October 18, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 923 · Agreed To · December 10, 2024
Division 922 · Agreed To · December 10, 2024
Division 921 · Agreed To · December 10, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 429 · Agreed To · October 25, 2023
## 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).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 861 · Agreed To · September 25, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 800 · Agreed To · June 5, 2024
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 813 · Agreed To · June 12, 2024
## Summary This bill amends the federal Health of Animals Act to create a specific offence for entering barns or other enclosed places where animals are kept without permission, if that entry could reasonably be expected to expose animals to a disease or toxic substance. It also sets new maximum fines and possible jail time for individuals and organizations that break this rule (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)). - Defines a new offence for unauthorized entry that risks exposing animals to disease or toxins (new s. 9.1). - Applies to bringing in any animal or “thing” (for example, equipment, clothing, or materials) that could carry disease or toxins (new s. 9.1). - Sets maximum penalties for individuals: up to CAD $25,000 and/or up to 3 months on summary conviction; up to CAD $100,000 and/or up to 1 year on indictment (s. 65(1.1)). - Sets maximum penalties for organizations: up to CAD $100,000 on summary conviction; up to CAD $500,000 on indictment (s. 65(1.2)). - Requires proof that exposure “could reasonably be expected,” not just that someone entered without permission (new s. 9.1). ## What it means for you - Households and visitors - Unauthorized entry into barns or other enclosed areas where animals are kept, when your presence could reasonably be expected to expose animals to disease or toxins, becomes a federal offence. Penalties can include fines and jail (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)). - Bringing in items or animals that could carry disease or toxins without permission can also trigger the offence (new s. 9.1). - People with permission or lawful excuse (for example, invited guests, lawful inspectors) are not targeted by this offence (new s. 9.1). - Workers and service providers - Employees, veterinarians, delivery drivers, and contractors with lawful authority can continue their work. The offence focuses on unauthorized entry that poses a biosecurity risk (new s. 9.1). - Good biosecurity practices matter. If you lack authority or excuse and bring in items that could spread disease, you may face charges (new s. 9.1). - Farmers and animal facility operators - Provides a federal offence you can report if someone enters enclosed animal areas without permission and risks exposure to disease or toxins (new s. 9.1). - The bill does not set biosecurity rules, signage, or protocols. It does not change your existing duties under other laws. It adds a specific offence for risky, unauthorized entry (new s. 9.1). - Advocacy groups and media - Unauthorized entry into enclosed animal areas that could reasonably be expected to expose animals to disease or toxins carries new legal risk, including fines and possible jail (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)). - Across Canada - Applies nationwide once in force as part of the federal Health of Animals Act (new s. 9.1). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable (no appropriations in the bill; enforcement costs not estimated). - No direct appropriations, grants, or fees are created by the bill text. Data unavailable on enforcement costs or court impacts (Bill text). - Potential fine revenue exists due to new maximum fines, but expected amounts are not estimated. Data unavailable. - Any training or operational costs for enforcement and prosecution are not specified. Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Improves animal biosecurity by targeting conduct that risks exposing animals to disease or toxic substances, helping prevent outbreaks in barns and enclosed facilities (new s. 9.1). - Creates clear, stronger penalties to deter risky trespass and the introduction of contaminated items or animals (s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)). - Fills a gap by creating a specific federal offence under the Health of Animals Act, rather than relying only on general trespass or property laws (new s. 9.1). - Uses a “could reasonably be expected” standard, which requires proof of a real risk, not mere presence. This sets a threshold the prosecution must meet (new s. 9.1). - Applies to both individuals and organizations, aligning penalties with the potential scale of harm (s. 65(1.1)-(1.2)). ## Opponents' View - Overbreadth and vagueness: “Thing” is not defined in the bill, and “could reasonably be expected” may be applied inconsistently, creating uncertainty for visitors, workers, and media (new s. 9.1). - Chilling effects: The risk of criminal charges and high fines could deter whistleblowers or journalists from documenting conditions, even when they take precautions (new s. 9.1; s. 65(1.1)). - Duplication: Provinces already have trespass and related laws; the added federal offence may duplicate existing tools without clear evidence of added effectiveness. Data unavailable. - Enforcement burden: Investigating biosecurity risk and proving “reasonable expectation” may require expert evidence and increase workload for police, inspectors, and courts. Data unavailable. - Uneven application: The bill does not set standards for notice or signage, which could lead to disputes over whether a person had fair warning that entry posed a biosecurity risk (new s. 9.1).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 461 · Agreed To · November 29, 2023
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 22 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
Division 21 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
Division 20 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 18 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
Division 17 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
Division 16 · Agreed To · June 17, 2025
## Summary This bill would put into force a new trade deal between Canada and Indonesia. Its goal is to lower tariffs (import taxes), set clear trade rules, and support fair labour and environmental standards. It also creates ways to solve disputes and check on how the deal is working over time. - Approves the Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and makes it part of Canadian law. - Creates an “Indonesia Tariff” that cuts or removes tariffs on most goods from Indonesia, many right away and others over 5, 10, or up to 15 years. Some sensitive goods are excluded. - Updates customs, trade tribunal, and other laws so businesses can claim the new tariff and follow the deal’s rules of origin and paperwork. - Lets the government use temporary “safeguards” if a surge of Indonesian imports harms Canadian producers, including pausing tariff cuts or adding short-term duties after an inquiry. - Requires the Trade Minister to make sure Canadian companies in Indonesia follow responsible business conduct principles, set up a public complaints process, and publish a yearly report. - Commits both countries to protect labour rights and the environment, recognizes Indigenous participation in trade, protects cultural industries, and states the deal does not apply to water. - The law will take effect on a date set by the federal government. ## What it means for you - Consumers - Many everyday items from Indonesia could get cheaper over time as tariffs fall, such as clothing, some footwear, household goods, and certain foods. - Some items may stay the same price if they are excluded or if cuts take many years. - Workers and domestic producers - Some sectors may face more competition from Indonesian imports. If this causes serious injury to Canadian producers, industry can ask the trade tribunal to investigate. The government can pause tariff cuts or add temporary duties. - Clearer, more predictable rules for exporting to Indonesia may help businesses grow sales abroad. - Small and medium-sized businesses - Lower tariffs and simpler paperwork can make importing from and exporting to Indonesia easier. - The agreement aims to help smaller firms take part in trade. However, firms must still meet rules of origin and keep records. - Importers and exporters - A new “Indonesia Tariff” is available for goods that “originate” in Indonesia. Importers, exporters, or producers can certify origin using prescribed forms and must keep supporting documents. - Many tariff cuts begin at once; others phase in over 5, 10, or up to 15 years, depending on the product. - Some goods are excluded from preferences and will not get the Indonesia Tariff. - Investors and service providers - More stable, transparent rules for investment and services. There is a process to resolve disputes under the agreement. - Communities and civil society - The deal includes chapters on labour rights and the environment and encourages strong corporate social responsibility. - Anyone can file a complaint with the Trade Minister about a Canadian company’s conduct in Indonesia. The Minister must respond and report annually. - Indigenous Peoples and cultural sectors - The agreement recognizes the importance of Indigenous participation in trade. - Cultural industries remain protected. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Will lower costs for consumers and help Canadian exporters reach a fast‑growing market of over 270 million people. - Diversifies trade in the Indo‑Pacific, reducing reliance on a few partners and making Canada’s economy more resilient. - Gives small businesses clearer rules, simpler origin certification, and new opportunities as tariffs drop. - Includes labour and environmental commitments, plus a new complaints process for responsible business conduct by Canadian firms abroad. - Builds a predictable framework for services and investment, which can attract new projects and jobs in Canada. - Includes transparent review every three years so Parliament can assess impacts and recommend changes. ## Opponents' View - Some Canadian farmers, food processors, and manufacturers could face tougher import competition, risking jobs in vulnerable sectors. - Labour and environmental promises may be hard to enforce in practice; oversight of company conduct could lack strong penalties. - Investor‑state or arbitration features may give foreign investors special avenues to challenge public policies. - The government can change how some laws apply to Indonesia by order, which critics say reduces parliamentary oversight. - Smaller firms may find rules of origin and paperwork burdensome despite tariff cuts. - Tariff reductions could lower federal customs revenue, while administration of committees, panels, and reporting adds costs.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 62 · Agreed To · February 2, 2026
## Summary This is the federal government’s first Budget 2025 implementation bill. It changes many tax rules, launches or expands clean‑economy incentives, sets up “open banking,” creates a new rulebook for stablecoins, and funds housing and other priorities. It also ends the federal underused housing tax and the luxury tax on private boats and aircraft. Key highlights - Raises the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption to $1.25 million and adds a new break for selling to employee ownership trusts or worker co‑ops (up to $10 million tax‑free). - Adds a Personal Support Workers Tax Credit and expands what disability support expenses can be claimed. - Creates a new, refundable Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit; extends and expands other clean economy credits (clean technology, clean hydrogen, CCUS). - Ends the Underused Housing Tax after 2024; speeds up rental construction with faster write‑offs and a 10% accelerated CCA for new purpose‑built rentals. - Repeals the Digital Services Tax; ends the luxury tax on aircraft and vessels; keeps the GST rental rebate expansion for co‑ops and student housing. - Launches consumer‑driven banking (open banking) with Bank of Canada oversight; sets strong consent, security, and liability rules. - Regulates fiat‑backed stablecoins: redemption at par, full reserves, approved custodians, and no interest to holders; Bank of Canada supervision and penalties. - Enables a High‑Speed Rail project between Quebec and Ontario; gives Canada Post power to set postage; boosts housing delivery (Build Canada Homes) and raises the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s capital room. ## What it means for you - Households - Higher Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption (up to $1.25 million) lowers taxes when selling a qualifying farm, fishing, or small business. - Disability support expenses list gets longer. More items can be claimed. - Canada Disability Benefit is not counted as income for tax. - Large donations made after Nov. 14, 2024 can count toward 2024 taxes if given before March 2025. - A National School Food Program Act sets a vision and annual reporting, but no direct benefit is payable to families in this bill. - Renters, builders, and landlords - Faster write‑offs for new purpose‑built rental buildings (10% accelerated CCA) and broader accelerated expensing help projects pencil out sooner. - Ending the Underused Housing Tax after 2024 removes annual filing and payments for affected owners. - GST Enhanced Rental Rebate extends to co‑op housing projects and student residences built by public institutions. - Workers and caregivers - New Personal Support Workers Tax Credit (up to $1,100 a year; 5% of eligible wages) starting with 2026 tax year. - More disability‑related items eligible under the Disability Supports Deduction. - Small businesses and entrepreneurs - Simpler rollovers for small business shares; bigger SR&ED support (including some capital costs and, for the first time, eligible Canadian public companies). - New tax break if you sell your business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co‑op (up to $10 million in gains tax‑free if conditions are met). - Carbon rebates for small businesses are updated; immediate expensing is reinstated for productivity‑boosting assets. - Homeowners with cottages or secondary properties - Underused Housing Tax ends for 2025 onward; no filing or payment for future years. - Boat and plane buyers - Luxury tax on large boats and private aircraft ends for taxes that would arise after Nov. 4, 2025. - Bank customers and fintech users - Open banking: You can direct your bank to share your data safely with accredited apps and services (no fees for sharing; strict consent; dashboards; you can withdraw consent anytime; clear liability if data is misused). - Banks must add fraud‑prevention plans, give fast notices about account capability changes, and let you set transaction limits. - Crypto users and firms - Fiat‑backed stablecoins must be redeemable at par, fully reserved, and held with qualified custodians; no interest to holders. Issuers face Bank of Canada oversight, reporting, and penalties. - Indigenous communities - New opt‑in authority for Indigenous governments to levy value‑added taxes on fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping on their lands. - Certain Indigenous trusts are exempted from the Alternative Minimum Tax. - Mailers and small e‑commerce - Canada Post will set its own postage rates and terms (must be fair and reasonable overall), rather than through federal regulations. - Regions along the Quebec–Ontario corridor - High‑Speed Rail Network Act clears federal approvals, sets land tools (right of first refusal, limited work prohibitions), and applies environmental assessment segment‑by‑segment. ## Expenses Estimated annual cost: No single number. This bill mixes new spending, new and expanded tax credits, and revenue reductions. - Housing and infrastructure - Build Canada Homes: up to $11.5 billion authorized (amount and timing depend on future plans). - Canada Lands Company: up to $1.515 billion in capital support. - Canada Infrastructure Bank: capital room increased to $45 billion (not an immediate outlay). - Clean economy credits (refundable in many cases) - New Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (refundable); expanded clean technology, clean hydrogen and CCUS credits; extension to 2035 for full CCUS rates. These lower future federal revenues and increase outlays as projects claim them. - Revenue reductions - Ending the Underused Housing Tax after 2024 lowers revenue. - Ending the luxury tax on aircraft and vessels lowers revenue. - Raising the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption and adding seller relief for employee ownership/worker co‑ops reduces revenue. - Repealing the Digital Services Tax removes a planned revenue source (with refunds if any amounts were paid). - Tax measures for people and firms - Personal Support Workers Tax Credit, disability changes, SR&ED enhancements and accelerated expensing all reduce revenues over time. - Borrowing authority - Federal borrowing limit raised to $2.541 trillion. This is capacity, not immediate spending. Exact annual fiscal impacts depend on take‑up, timing of projects, and future budgets. No consolidated public total is provided in the bill text. ## Proponents’ View - Helps families and workers by expanding disability supports, creating a PSW credit, and setting a national vision for school food. - Makes it easier to pass down or sell Canadian businesses, including to employees, and fosters employee ownership and co‑ops. - Pushes clean electricity and clean tech investment with strong, long‑term credits, giving certainty to build grids, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture. - Speeds up rental housing with faster tax write‑offs and extends GST relief to co‑ops and student residences. - Cuts red tape and modernizes banking: Open banking empowers consumers, improves competition, and sets strong privacy and liability rules. - Stablecoin rules protect consumers and financial stability while allowing innovation with clear, Bank of Canada oversight. - Ends the underused housing tax burden and a flawed luxury tax on boats and planes that had low yield and high complexity. - Enables big nation‑building projects (high‑speed rail) and streamlines Canada Post, while boosting housing delivery capacity (Build Canada Homes). ## Opponents’ View - Cost and revenue loss: Expanded credits, higher capital gains exemption, tax breaks for business sales, UHT and luxury tax repeals reduce revenues; large clean‑economy credits could be expensive. - Housing impact: Ending the Underused Housing Tax may remove a tool against vacant homes; rental CCA changes help supply but do not directly lower rents. - Climate mix: Allowing credits for some gas‑fired power with carbon capture may lock in fossil assets; critics may call it a subsidy. - Complexity and compliance: Many detailed tax and regulatory changes add complexity for taxpayers, accountants, and small businesses. - Open banking and stablecoins: Despite safeguards, risks remain around fraud, data breaches and scams; some worry about consumer protection and financial stability. - Canada Post rate‑setting and high‑speed rail powers: Concerns about accountability, affordability of postage, land use, and expropriation processes. - Borrowing limit increase: Raises concerns about long‑term debt capacity and fiscal room without clear offsets.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 53 · Negatived · December 8, 2025
## Summary This bill aims to lower everyday costs for Canadians. It cuts the lowest federal income tax rate, adds a large temporary GST/HST rebate for first-time buyers of new homes, ends the federal fuel charge (carbon tax on fuels), and sets national privacy rules for federal political parties. - Lowers the federal tax rate on the first bracket to 14.5% in 2025 and 14% from 2026 onward. - Creates a temporary, extra GST/HST new‑housing rebate for first‑time home buyers, worth up to $50,000, with price caps and timelines. - Repeals Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the federal fuel charge on gasoline, home heating fuel, etc.) and related regulations, starting in 2025, on a set schedule. - Keeps industrial carbon pricing (for large emitters) in place; the repeal targets the fuel charge only. - Requires federal political parties to have and follow a public, plain‑language privacy policy, with a named privacy officer, and creates a national, exclusive privacy regime for parties that overrides provincial privacy laws. - Requires the Finance Minister to publish a report on how the low‑rate tax cut affects tax credits. ## What it means for you - Workers and other taxpayers - You will pay a lower federal tax rate on the first slice of your taxable income starting in 2025, with a further drop in 2026. This means slightly more take‑home pay for most people. - First‑time home buyers (new construction) - If you buy a newly built home or condo and are a first‑time buyer, you can get an extra GST/HST rebate up to $50,000. - Full amounts apply up to about $1,000,000 (building‑only/co‑op variants use slightly different caps); the rebate phases out and ends near $1,500,000. Caps are a bit higher in HST provinces. - You must be 18+, a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and plan to live in the home as your main residence. - You and your spouse/common‑law partner must both meet the first‑time buyer test (neither owned and lived in a home during the past four years). - Applies to agreements signed after March 19, 2025 and before 2031. Construction must start before 2031 and be substantially finished before 2036. Transfer of ownership (or possession, depending on the case) must happen before 2036. - Only one person in a couple can claim this rebate. You cannot claim it twice as a couple. - Also covers co‑op housing shares, “building‑only” purchases, and owner‑built homes under set rules. - Drivers, households, and small businesses that buy fuel - The federal fuel charge (carbon tax on fuels) will be repealed, starting April 2025 with further dates later in 2025 and 2035 for some pieces. - If your province was under the federal fuel charge, you may see lower prices for gasoline, diesel, propane, and natural gas once repeal takes effect. Provinces could have their own policies. - The bill does not address existing household carbon rebates. - Voters and party volunteers - Federal political parties must publish and follow a privacy policy in plain language and name a privacy officer. - Parties and those acting for them must follow the party’s policy, but they are not required to follow provincial or territorial privacy laws for these activities. - The law states Canadians do not have a right to access or correct personal information held by parties under provincial rules. Any handling of your data is governed by the party’s own policy and federal election law. - Elections Canada must hold at least one meeting each year on protecting personal information by parties. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Taxes on low and middle incomes go down, leaving more money in people’s pockets. - A big, time‑limited rebate helps first‑time buyers bridge the gap to new home ownership and supports new housing construction. - Ending the federal fuel charge lowers costs for driving, home heating, and shipping, easing pressure on family budgets. - A single, national privacy framework for political parties provides clarity and consistency and reduces red tape from different provincial rules. - Strong anti‑avoidance rules stop people from gaming the housing rebate. ## Opponents' View - Cutting the tax rate and adding a large rebate reduces federal revenues and could increase the deficit or pressure public services. - The new‑home rebate may boost demand and push prices higher, and it mainly helps buyers of new — often higher‑priced — homes, not resale buyers or renters. - Repealing the fuel charge weakens climate policy and may increase emissions by removing the price signal to pollute; households could also lose offsetting carbon rebate payments, though the bill does not say. - The privacy changes shield political parties from stricter provincial privacy laws and give Canadians no right to access or correct party‑held data, relying instead on each party’s own policy.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 8 · Agreed To · June 12, 2025
## Summary This bill directs the federal government to create a national strategy to improve how Canada forecasts floods and droughts. The goal is to give provinces, cities, Indigenous communities, farmers, insurers, and others better, earlier information so they can prepare and reduce damage. It sets who must be consulted, what the plan must cover, and when reports must be shared with Parliament and the public. - Orders the Minister of the Environment, working with four other federal ministers, to develop the strategy. - Requires consultations with provinces, municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, universities, civil society groups, and industry, including insurers. - Calls for assessments of the need for national coordination, new investments, and new technologies in forecasting. - Looks at modeling to identify properties and infrastructure at flood risk and to improve floodplain maps. - Calls for a proposal to build a shared national water-forecasting service with provinces, based on the existing National Hydrological Service. - Requires the strategy to be tabled in Parliament within two years and posted online; after five years, the government must report on how well the strategy worked. ## What it means for you - Residents and homeowners - No immediate changes. If the strategy leads to better maps and alerts, you may get clearer risk information before storms or spring melts. - More precise risk data could help with home planning and preparedness. It could also influence insurance availability and pricing over time. - Farmers and rural communities - Better drought and flood forecasts could help plan planting, irrigation, and herd management. - Earlier warnings may reduce crop losses and help protect equipment and roads. - Local governments and emergency managers - A national system could offer shared tools, data, and models to plan evacuations, protect infrastructure, and guide zoning. - Clearer floodplain maps could support decisions on building and repairs. - Indigenous communities - Required consultations give a voice in shaping the strategy and data needs. - Improved local forecasts can support community safety, land-use planning, and cultural practices tied to water. - Insurers and businesses - More consistent risk information can improve underwriting, pricing, and business continuity planning. - Industries that depend on water (energy, mining, transport) may get better short- and long-term outlooks. - Researchers and universities - The strategy may draw on Canadian models and expertise, helping translate research into public tools and services. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Canada faces more severe floods and droughts; better forecasts can save lives, homes, farms, and public infrastructure. - Provinces now forecast on their own. A national approach can reduce gaps, share data, and avoid duplication. - Canada already has strong university models and technical know-how; a strategy would put these to work at scale. - Farmers, towns, and Indigenous communities would get earlier warnings and clearer maps to prepare. - Insurers and businesses would have more reliable risk data, which can stabilize coverage and guide investments. - Public reporting timelines add accountability and keep the plan focused on results. ## Opponents' View - Water management is often a provincial role; a federal strategy could overlap with or duplicate provincial systems. - Building advanced models and computing capacity could be expensive, with unclear ongoing costs. - Property-level risk mapping may raise insurance premiums or affect home values in high-risk areas. - A two-year window to produce the strategy means benefits may take time to show, while urgent needs persist. - A national system might overlook local knowledge or unique regional conditions if not designed carefully.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 52 · Agreed To · December 3, 2025
## Summary This bill changes the federal Fisheries Act to set common rules for Atlantic recreational groundfish fishing and to improve reporting and monitoring. It requires harmonized “close times” (periods when fishing is not allowed) across Atlantic provinces for recreational groundfish and ties those closures to spawning seasons only. It adds new reporting powers, mandates advance online notice for closures and quotas, and orders the Minister to build a catch monitoring system within one year. - Harmonizes recreational groundfish close times across NL, NS, NB, and PEI (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - Limits recreational close times to each species’ spawning period (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - Requires at least 2 months’ public notice online before close times or quotas take effect (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Expands record-keeping powers to include number of fish caught per day and per season (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1)). - Orders a monitoring system to record species, number, time, and place of catch within 1 year of coming into force (Bill: Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). - Adds “stability and predictability for recreational groundfishers” as a decision-making factor (Bill: s.2.5(g.1)). - Keeps an annual report to Parliament on administration and enforcement (Bill: s.42.1(1)). ## What it means for you - Households and recreational anglers - Recreational groundfish seasons will match across Atlantic provinces. Expect the same open and close dates in NL, NS, NB, and PEI once regulations are updated (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - Closure dates can only be set to cover the species’ spawning period. Closures for other reasons will not be used for recreational groundfish close times (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - You may be required to report how many fish you catch each day and your total for the season, by species. This could be via logbook, app, or other system set by the Minister (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1); Monitoring System s.(1)). - The Department must give at least 2 months’ notice online before new closures or quota changes take effect. You will have more lead time to plan trips (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Charter operators and tourism businesses - Uniform seasons across provinces may simplify booking and marketing across borders in Atlantic Canada (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - You may face new reporting steps for clients’ catches, including species, counts, time, and location, depending on how the system is designed (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1); Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). - Advance online notice of closures and quotas (2 months minimum) can reduce last-minute cancellations (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Commercial fishers - Any fishing quota or closure set or varied by regulation or variation order must be posted online at least 2 months before it starts. This affects commercial quotas as well (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - The bill does not create new commercial catch reporting here, but some operational timelines may shift due to the 2‑month notice rule (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Provinces and territories (Atlantic) - Federal regulations will harmonize recreational groundfish close times across Atlantic provinces. Provincial coordination with DFO may be needed to align communications and enforcement (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - Indigenous communities and rights-holders - The bill does not change Indigenous rights. It adds federal monitoring and notice requirements that could affect timing of regulations in shared waters (Bill: publication clause under s.43; Monitoring System s.(1)). - Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) - Must publish any close times or quota changes at least 2 months before they take effect (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Must develop, within 1 year of the Act coming into force, a monitoring system that records species, number, time, and place of catch; consider funding it with existing fees and penalties; and add incentives for timely reporting (Bill: Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). - Must continue annual reporting to Parliament on administration and enforcement (Bill: s.42.1(1)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note or appropriation is included in the bill text. Data unavailable. - Required activities with potential costs: - Design and implement a monitoring system within 1 year, including stakeholder consultation (Bill: Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). Data unavailable. - Expand public communications to meet the 2‑month online posting rule for closures and quotas (Bill: publication clause under s.43). Data unavailable. - Administer added record-keeping and reporting requirements (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1)). Data unavailable. - Potential cost recovery: - The Minister must examine covering administrative costs through existing fees and penalties and consider fee reductions as reporting incentives (Bill: Monitoring System s.(2)(b)-(c)). Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Harmonized seasons make rules clear for anglers and businesses across the Atlantic region, improving planning and compliance (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - Tying closures to spawning protects reproduction while keeping other times open, which backers say balances conservation with access (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - A 2‑month online notice reduces surprise changes, supports trip planning and bookings, and may improve compliance and safety (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - Expanded reporting powers and a modern monitoring system will give better data on recreational removals by species, time, and place, improving stock assessments (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1); Monitoring System s.(1)). - Examining use of existing fees and penalties to fund the system could limit new costs to taxpayers, while fee reductions can reward timely reporting (Bill: Monitoring System s.(2)(b)-(c)). - Adding “stability and predictability” as a factor ensures recreational fishers’ interests are considered alongside other objectives (Bill: s.2.5(g.1)). ## Opponents' View - Limiting recreational close times to spawning periods could reduce flexibility to address other risks, such as poor stock status, bycatch, or ecosystem stress outside spawning windows (Bill: new s.43(1.1)). - The 2‑month advance notice may hinder rapid response to unforeseen events (e.g., sudden stock declines or gear conflicts), delaying needed management actions (Bill: publication clause under s.43). - New reporting duties could burden anglers and charter operators and may face low compliance without strong outreach and simple tools (Bill: s.61(2)(e.1); Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). - The bill mandates a monitoring system but gives no budget; shifting costs to fees and penalties could raise costs for participants, while fee reductions as incentives may reduce revenue (Bill: Monitoring System s.(2)(b)-(c)). Data unavailable. - The bill does not specify privacy safeguards for time-and-location catch data; opponents may seek clear limits on data use and retention in regulations (Bill: Monitoring System s.(1)-(2)). - Harmonizing seasons across provinces may ignore local ecological differences and community needs, reducing room for region-specific management (Bill: new s.43(1.1)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 74 · Negatived · February 25, 2026
## Summary This bill would require the federal government to share more information with Parliament and the public before Canada approves (ratifies) most international treaties. It sets a standard review period, spells out what must be disclosed, and adds a special review step for “major treaties.” It also allows emergency exceptions, with reasons given after the fact, and sets deadlines to publish treaties once approved. - Before Canada ratifies a treaty, the Foreign Affairs Minister must table the treaty in the House of Commons at least 21 sitting days in advance, with a plain-language memo on its contents, costs, and effects. - Changes to an existing treaty must also be tabled in advance, with an explanation of what is changing and why. - “Major treaties” (including trade deals, tax-raising treaties, those with big costs, sanctions, borders, territory, or transfers of powers to international bodies) must be reviewed by a House committee, and the Minister must seek the House’s advice before ratifying. - In exceptional circumstances, the federal cabinet can let the Minister skip the advance tabling, but the documents and written reasons must be tabled as soon as possible afterward. - After ratification, the government must quickly publish the treaty and any late changes in the Canada Gazette, on the department’s website, and in the Canada Treaty Series. ## What it means for you - General public - More advance notice of new treaties that could affect daily life, jobs, prices, privacy, travel, borders, or sanctions. - Easier to read what a treaty would do, how much it might cost, and what Canada must do to follow it. - A set window (at least 21 sitting days) to contact your MP or submit views before Canada is bound. - Workers and businesses - Earlier warning about trade and investment treaties that may change market access, rules, or competition. - A chance to provide input to a House committee on “major treaties.” - Some agreements may take longer to finalize because of the review period. - Provinces, territories, Indigenous organizations, unions, and industry groups - The government must include a record of consultations with interested parties (other than foreign governments), which can highlight your views on the public record. - Clearer visibility into planned obligations and costs that could affect shared or local responsibilities. - People following defense, sanctions, and borders - Treaties that impose sanctions, change territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, airspace), or affect Canada’s participation in international bodies would face a formal committee review and House advice. - Transparency and access - Final texts and explanations of last-minute changes must be posted online within days and printed in official publications within set timelines. - Limits and exceptions - In urgent cases, the government can approve a treaty without advance tabling, but must table the documents and explain why afterward. - The House’s role is to give advice. The bill does not require a binding vote to approve a treaty. ## Expenses No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Gives elected MPs a clear role before Canada makes binding international promises, improving democratic oversight. - Improves transparency by requiring plain-language summaries, cost estimates, Canada’s obligations, and any “opt-out” options to be disclosed up front. - Helps Canadians, including provinces, Indigenous groups, businesses, and unions, prepare and speak up before decisions are final. - Reduces surprises and unintended costs by forcing a public review of “major treaties.” - Locks current practice into law so all future governments must follow the same transparency rules. ## Opponents' View - Could slow down foreign policy and reduce flexibility, especially during fast-moving crises, even with the emergency exception. - May complicate sensitive negotiations or expose positions too early, risking worse outcomes or failed talks. - Adds red tape and committee workload, while the House’s “advice” is not binding and might create confusion about who decides. - Duplicates much of the existing policy that already requires tabling treaties before ratification, with unclear added benefit. - The 21-sitting-day timeline may be too short for deep analysis of complex treaties, or too long when quick action is needed.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 61 · Negatived · January 28, 2026
## Summary This bill orders the federal government to create a national strategy on housing for young Canadians (ages 17–34). It sets consultation, conference, and reporting rules to assess housing needs and propose measures. The bill does not create programs or funding; it focuses on planning and accountability. - Defines “young Canadian” as 17–34 years old (Definitions). - Requires a designated Minister to develop the strategy with provinces, municipalities, youth, and housing organizations (National strategy (1)). - The strategy must assess rental, student housing, and entry-level home ownership, and list measures that can be taken to improve access (Content (2)(a)–(e)). - Mandates at least one conference with stakeholders (Conference (4)). - Requires a strategy report within 18 months of the Act coming into force, and an effectiveness report within 4 years after that report (Tabling of national strategy (1); Report (1)). - Requires both reports to be published online within 10 days after tabling in Parliament (Publication (2)). ## What it means for you - Households (young Canadians 17–34) - No direct changes to rent, mortgages, or benefits from this bill. It creates a plan, not programs (Content (2)). - You may be invited to consultations or a conference during strategy development (National strategy (1); Conference (4)). - The strategy must consider supports for renters and first-time buyers, but any new benefits would need separate action later (Content (2)(a)–(c), (e)). - Timeline: a public strategy within 18 months after the Act takes effect; a public effectiveness report within 4 years after the first report (Tabling of national strategy (1); Report (1)). - Students - The strategy must assess access to student housing and consider ways to promote it (Content (2)). - No immediate new student housing or subsidies are created by this bill (Content (2)). - Renters (17–34) - The strategy must include measures that can be taken to improve access to affordable and secure rental housing (Content (2)(a)). - No rent caps or rental assistance are created by this bill (Content (2)). - First-time homebuyers (17–34) - The strategy must include measures that can be taken to support first-time buyers and promote housing affordable to them (Content (2)(b), (c)). - No new grants, tax credits, or loans are created by this bill (Content (2)). - Housing providers, co-ops, builders, and landlords - The strategy will look at promoting construction of rental, student, and co-operative housing (Content (2)(c)). - You may be consulted and can share data and ideas; the bill encourages knowledge-sharing among governments (Content (2)(d); National strategy (1)). - Municipalities and provinces/territories - Must be consulted; the strategy must consider your existing housing initiatives (National strategy (1); Considerations (3)). - At least one conference will include you (Conference (4)). - No new mandates or funding flows are created by this bill (Content (2); Considerations (3)). - General public - Greater transparency through two public reports and set timelines (Tabling of national strategy (1); Report (1); Publication (2)). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriations, taxes, or fees appear in the bill text (entire bill). - Administrative costs for consultations, a conference, drafting, and tabling reports are not stated. Data unavailable. - Reporting deadlines: - Strategy report within 18 months after the Act comes into force (Tabling of national strategy (1)). - Effectiveness report within 4 years after the strategy report is tabled (Report (1)). ## Proponents' View - Focuses federal effort on a group facing high housing barriers, with a clear definition of “young Canadian” (Definitions). - Builds an evidence base by requiring an assessment of affordability and availability in rental, student housing, and entry-level home ownership (Content (2)). - Directs the strategy to list concrete measures that can be taken to improve rental access, support first-time buyers, and promote construction, including co-ops (Content (2)(a)–(c)). - Encourages coordination and knowledge-sharing across federal, provincial, municipal, and community partners, which proponents say can reduce duplication (Content (2)(d); Considerations (3)). - Ensures youth and youth-serving groups have a voice through mandated consultations and at least one conference (National strategy (1); Conference (4)). - Adds accountability with firm timelines for public reports to Parliament and online publication (Tabling of national strategy (1)–(2); Report (1)–(2)). ## Opponents' View - Creates a strategy but no binding targets, funding, or programs; may not deliver units or lower costs on its own (Content (2)). - Could duplicate or fragment work under existing federal and provincial housing strategies; “consideration” may not prevent overlap (Considerations (3)). - Delays action: up to 18 months before a strategy is published, plus years before an effectiveness review (Tabling of national strategy (1); Report (1)). - Adds administrative and consultation costs without stated budgets or cost caps. Data unavailable. - Jurisdiction concerns: housing is shared among governments; a federal strategy could complicate roles even if the bill is consultative (National strategy (1); Considerations (3)). - Age cut-off (17–34) may exclude under-17 youth in need and older first-time buyers, raising equity questions (Definitions).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 68 · Agreed To · February 12, 2026
## Summary This bill makes September “Ukrainian Heritage Month” across Canada every year. It is a commemorative designation. It does not create programs, funding, or legal obligations. The preamble notes the size of the Ukrainian-Canadian community and its contributions to Canada. - Names September as Ukrainian Heritage Month nationwide each year (Bill Section 2). - Recognizes the history and contributions of more than 1.3 million Ukrainian-Canadians (Preamble). - Creates an annual opportunity to remember, celebrate, and educate about Ukrainian heritage (Preamble). - Does not mandate events, curricula, funding, or regulations (Bill Sections 1–2). - Takes effect on Royal Assent and recurs annually. ## What it means for you - Households and communities: September will be an officially recognized month to mark Ukrainian culture and history. Participation in events, if any, is voluntary. No new benefits or duties start (Bill Section 2). - Schools and cultural organizations: There is no requirement to teach new content or hold events. Any activities would be optional and based on existing plans or resources (Bill Section 2). - Businesses: No compliance duties, reporting, or costs are created. Businesses may choose to acknowledge the month in their communications, but the bill does not require it (Bill Section 2). - Federal, provincial, and municipal governments: No mandated programs, spending, or reporting. Public institutions may choose to issue statements or host events at their discretion (Bill Section 2). - Service users: The bill does not change access to services, immigration rules, or funding. Daily services continue as before (Bill Sections 1–2). ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable; the bill includes no appropriations, fees, or mandated spending (Bill Sections 1–2). - Direct appropriations in the bill: None (Bill text). - New taxes or fees: None (Bill text). - Mandated activities for departments or agencies: None (Bill text). - Discretionary communications or event costs by institutions: Data unavailable. ## Proponents' View - Formal recognition honors the history and ongoing contributions of over 1.3 million Ukrainian-Canadians to Canada’s social, economic, political, and cultural life (Preamble). - September is historically significant as the first recorded arrival month of Ukrainians to Canada over 125 years ago, making the timing meaningful (Preamble). - A national designation creates a clear, recurring opportunity to celebrate and educate the public about Ukrainian heritage in communities across the country (Preamble; Bill Section 2). - The measure is low-cost because it sets a designation only and does not require new programs or spending (Bill Sections 1–2). - The act aligns with Canadian commitments to human rights, democracy, and international law, reinforcing shared values (Preamble). ## Opponents' View - The bill is symbolic only; it creates no enforceable rights, programs, or funding, so outcomes depend entirely on voluntary actions (Bill Sections 1–2). - Without a coordinating body, standards, or reporting, observance may be uneven across institutions and regions, and impact will be hard to measure (Bill Section 2). - Public bodies could face small, discretionary communications or event costs if they choose to participate, with no guidance on scope or priorities; potential opportunity costs are unknown (Data unavailable). - Legislative time spent on commemorative designations may not address immediate service or policy needs; the bill includes no provisions that change services, benefits, or regulations (Bill Sections 1–2).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 69 · Agreed To · February 12, 2026
## 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)).
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 51 · Agreed To · December 3, 2025
## Summary This bill changes the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to protect parents who lose a child during maternity or parental leave. It keeps Employment Insurance (EI) maternity/parental benefits and federally regulated job-protected leave in place until the original end date, even if the child dies. It also removes the need to file new paperwork to keep benefits going. - EI maternity/parental benefits continue until the planned end of the benefit period after a child dies (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.1); s.152.05(2.1)). - No new EI claim or report is required to keep getting those benefits (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.2); s.152.05(2.2)). - An exception stops this EI protection if the parent is convicted of an offence that caused the child’s death (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.3); s.152.05(2.3)). - For federally regulated workers, maternity or parental leave remains in place until the original end date even if the child dies (Canada Labour Code s.206(4); s.206.1(2.01)). - The bill does not extend leave or benefits beyond the original period; it preserves the remainder only (same sections). ## What it means for you - Households - If you are on EI maternity or parental benefits and your child dies during your claim, EI continues paying you until your original benefit period ends. You do not need to file a new claim or report to prove eligibility (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.1)-(2.2); s.152.05(2.1)-(2.2)). - This applies whether the child was born to you or placed with you for adoption (Employment Insurance Act s.23(1); s.152.05(1)). - Workers (employees) - If you work in a federally regulated workplace and are on maternity or parental leave, your leave continues until the original end date even if your child dies (Canada Labour Code s.206(4); s.206.1(2.01)). - The Canada Labour Code change covers federal sectors only. Provincial and territorial employment standards are not changed by this bill. - Self‑employed persons (participating in EI special benefits) - If you opted into EI special benefits and are receiving parental benefits, you remain eligible to keep getting them until the end of the original period even if the child dies. No new claim or report is required (Employment Insurance Act s.152.05(2.1)-(2.2)). - Employers (federally regulated) - You must continue to hold the employee’s job for the rest of the originally approved maternity or parental leave period, even if the child dies (Canada Labour Code s.206(4); s.206.1(2.01)). - The bill does not require you to make any payments. It concerns leave entitlements and EI program benefits. - Legal exception - The EI continuation does not apply if the parent is convicted of an offence that caused the child’s death (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.3); s.152.05(2.3)). The Canada Labour Code amendment does not include a similar exception. ## Expenses Estimated net cost: Data unavailable. - No fiscal note is included in the bill text. Data unavailable. - No explicit appropriation or new fee is set out in the bill. The text changes eligibility rules and administration for EI benefits and leave. - Program effect: EI continues to pay maternity/parental benefits for the remainder of the original benefit period after the child’s death, for both employees and participating self‑employed (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.1); s.152.05(2.1)). - Employer finances: The bill creates no employer payment obligation; it preserves job‑protected leave under the Canada Labour Code for its original duration (Canada Labour Code s.206(4); s.206.1(2.01)). ## Proponents' View - Reduces administrative burden during a crisis by removing the need for a new EI claim or report to keep benefits flowing (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.2); s.152.05(2.2)). - Protects income stability by ensuring EI maternity/parental benefits continue for the remaining weeks of the approved period after a child’s death (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.1); s.152.05(2.1)). - Maintains job protection for the rest of the planned leave, giving time to recover before returning to work (Canada Labour Code s.206(4); s.206.1(2.01)). - Limits scope to the original entitlement period; it does not extend or add weeks beyond what was already approved (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.1); Canada Labour Code s.206(4)). - Includes a safeguard that denies EI continuation if the parent is convicted of an offence that caused the child’s death (Employment Insurance Act s.23(2.3); s.152.05(2.3)). ## Opponents' View - Increased EI outlays: Paying benefits for the remainder of the period after a child’s death could raise EI program costs versus current practice; no public cost estimate is provided. Data unavailable. - Uneven coverage: The leave protection change applies only to federally regulated workplaces. Most workers under provincial or territorial laws would not see their leave rules change unless those governments act separately. - Administrative complexity: The EI exception hinges on a criminal conviction. If a case is pending, benefits may be paid before the outcome, which could create overpayment and recovery issues. The bill does not address timing or recovery processes. Data unavailable. - Employer planning: Federally regulated employers must hold positions for the full, original leave even after a child’s death, which can affect scheduling and staffing. The bill does not provide transition or guidance for such cases. Data unavailable.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 64 · Agreed To · February 4, 2026
## 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.
Votes • Arpan Khanna
Division 47 · Agreed To · November 5, 2025
Division 45 · Agreed To · November 3, 2025
Division 44 · Agreed To · November 3, 2025
Division 36 · Agreed To · September 22, 2025
Division 60
Résultat: Negatived
Date
28 janv. 2026
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 55
Résultat: Negatived
Date
9 déc. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 54
Résultat: Negatived
Date
9 déc. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 50
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 nov. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 49
Résultat: Negatived
Date
7 nov. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 48
Résultat: Negatived
Date
6 nov. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 46
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
4 nov. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 43
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 oct. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 42
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 oct. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 41
Résultat: Negatived
Date
20 oct. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 40
Résultat: Negatived
Date
6 oct. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 39
Résultat: Negatived
Date
1 oct. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 38
Résultat: Negatived
Date
24 sept. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 37
Résultat: Negatived
Date
23 sept. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 35
Résultat: Negatived
Date
22 sept. 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 19
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 15
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 14
Résultat: Negatived
Date
17 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 12
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
16 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 11
Résultat: Negatived
Date
16 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 10
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
16 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 9
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
16 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 7
Résultat: Negatived
Date
11 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 6
Résultat: Negatived
Date
11 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 5
Résultat: Negatived
Date
10 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 4
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 3
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
2 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 2
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
2 juin 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 1
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 mai 2025
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 928
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 927
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 926
Résultat: Negatived
Date
17 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 925
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
12 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 924
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
12 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 920
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 919
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 918
Résultat: Negatived
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 917
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 916
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 915
Résultat: Negatived
Date
10 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 914
Résultat: Negatived
Date
9 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 913
Résultat: Negatived
Date
9 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 912
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 911
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 908
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
3 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 907
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
3 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 906
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
3 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 905
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
3 déc. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 903
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 902
Résultat: Negatived
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 901
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 900
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 899
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 898
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 897
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
27 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 896
Résultat: Negatived
Date
27 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 895
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
27 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 891
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
26 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 894
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
26 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 893
Résultat: Negatived
Date
26 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 892
Résultat: Negatived
Date
26 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 890
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
21 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 889
Résultat: Negatived
Date
21 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 888
Résultat: Negatived
Date
21 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 887
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 886
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 885
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 884
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 883
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 882
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
18 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 881
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 879
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
6 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 878
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 877
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 876
Résultat: Negatived
Date
5 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 875
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 nov. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 874
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
31 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 873
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 872
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 871
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 870
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
23 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 869
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
9 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 868
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
8 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 867
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 866
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
2 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 865
Résultat: Negatived
Date
1 oct. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 860
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
25 sept. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 858
Résultat: Negatived
Date
25 sept. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 857
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
24 sept. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 856
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 sept. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 854
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 sept. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 850
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 830
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
18 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 828
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
17 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 821
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 817
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 816
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 815
Résultat: Negatived
Date
13 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 810
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
11 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 808
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
11 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 807
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
11 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 804
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 803
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 797
Résultat: Negatived
Date
5 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 796
Résultat: Negatived
Date
5 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 793
Résultat: Negatived
Date
3 juin 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 786
Résultat: Negatived
Date
28 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 775
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 773
Résultat: Negatived
Date
27 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 771
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
22 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 770
Résultat: Negatived
Date
22 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 769
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
22 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 768
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
22 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 762
Résultat: Negatived
Date
21 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 760
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
21 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 757
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
8 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 755
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
8 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 754
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
8 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 749
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
2 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 748
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
2 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 747
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
1 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 746
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
1 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 744
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
1 mai 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 743
Résultat: Negatived
Date
30 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 742
Résultat: Negatived
Date
29 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 739
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
16 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 686
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
11 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 684
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 683
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
10 avr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 679
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
21 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 675
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
21 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 672
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
20 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 670
Résultat: Negatived
Date
20 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 669
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
20 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 658
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
18 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 657
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
18 mars 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 655
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 654
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 653
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 652
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 648
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
28 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 639
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 638
Résultat: Negatived
Date
13 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 637
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 636
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
12 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 635
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
12 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 634
Résultat: Negatived
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 632
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 631
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 630
Résultat: Negatived
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 629
Résultat: Negatived
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 628
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 625
Résultat: Negatived
Date
5 févr. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 620
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
31 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 618
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
31 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 617
Résultat: Negatived
Date
31 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 616
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
31 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 615
Résultat: Negatived
Date
31 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 614
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
30 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 613
Résultat: Negatived
Date
30 janv. 2024
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 612
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
15 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 611
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
14 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 610
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
13 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 608
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
12 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 605
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 602
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 601
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 600
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 599
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 598
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 597
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 596
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 595
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 594
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 593
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 592
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 591
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 590
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 589
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 588
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 587
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 586
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 585
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 584
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 583
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 582
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 581
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 580
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 579
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 578
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 577
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 576
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 573
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 571
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 570
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 569
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 568
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 567
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 566
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 565
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 564
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 563
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 562
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 561
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 560
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 559
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 558
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 557
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 556
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 555
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 554
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 553
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 552
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 551
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 550
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 549
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 548
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 547
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 546
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 545
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 544
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 543
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 542
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 541
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 540
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 539
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 538
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 537
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 536
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 535
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 534
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 533
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 532
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 531
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 530
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 529
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 528
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 527
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 526
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 525
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 524
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 523
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 522
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 521
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 520
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 518
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 517
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 516
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 515
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 514
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 513
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 512
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 511
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 510
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 509
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 508
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 507
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 506
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 505
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 504
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 503
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 502
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 501
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 500
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 499
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 498
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 497
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 495
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 494
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 493
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 492
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 491
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 490
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 489
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 488
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 487
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 486
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 485
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 484
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 483
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 482
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 481
Résultat: Negatived
Date
7 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 477
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
6 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 476
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
6 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 475
Résultat: Negatived
Date
6 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 470
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
5 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 469
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
4 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 468
Résultat: Negatived
Date
4 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 467
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
4 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 466
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
4 déc. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 465
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
30 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 464
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
30 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 463
Résultat: Negatived
Date
30 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 460
Résultat: Negatived
Date
29 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 459
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 458
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
29 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 457
Résultat: Negatived
Date
29 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 455
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
23 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 454
Résultat: Negatived
Date
23 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 452
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
23 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 453
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
23 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 447
Résultat: Negatived
Date
8 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 446
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
8 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 445
Résultat: Negatived
Date
8 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 441
Résultat: Negatived
Date
6 nov. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 437
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
31 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 436
Résultat: Negatived
Date
31 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 435
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
26 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 433
Résultat: Negatived
Date
25 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 432
Résultat: Negatived
Date
25 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 427
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
19 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Nay
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 421
Résultat: Negatived
Date
18 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 416
Résultat: Negatived
Date
4 oct. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 413
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
27 sept. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.
Division 412
Résultat: Agreed To
Date
26 sept. 2023
Chambre
lower
Vote du représentant
Yea
Parti
Conservative
Circonscription
Oxford
Résumé de la motion
Aucun résumé de motion disponible.