Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Saskatchewan Firearms Act, Bill 117, Backdoored And Worthless

Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, is making a big deal out of Bill 117, the Saskatchewan Firearms Act. It was introduced last December and has now passed Second Reading, with N.D.P. support. This is hailed as a way to protect gun owners from Ottawa. But, are things as they appear to be?

Keep in mind, Moe is the same monster who brought lockdowns, business closures, mask mandates and vaccine passports to Saskatchewan. This was less than 2 years ago. Remember how he decided the time for patience was over? Remember how Discount Bond Villain wanted to make things “less comfortable” for the unvaccinated?

Is this the person we should trust with our freedoms?

Moe is trying to portray himself as a hero of the people, saying Saskatchewan will not help in any way to enforce the gun grab from the May 2020 Order In Council. The stated purpose of this new Firearms Act is to create a separate system from Ottawa, one that can’t be abused.

Of course, any legislation in Saskatchewan can be viewed online at any time. While not exhaustive, here are some of the major points to consider.

Read the full text to ensure nothing is taken out of context:

3-1 explains what this really is. Saskatchewan is essentially setting up an additional firearms license, just a Saskatchewan version. If a person: (a) has a valid PAL/RPAL; and (b) is a Saskatchewan resident, they are deemed to have a Provincial license.

3-2(1) states that a firearms license will be revoked upon conviction of a number of criminal offenses.

3-3 through 3-12 list activities that are prohibited such as unauthorized possession, use, pointing of a firearm, illicit transport, import or export. These are already Criminal Code violations, and illegal anyway.

3-16 outlines the penalties for Section 3 violations, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

3-17 and 3-18 get into “alternative measures” for violations, and this could be considered parallel to diversion programs offered in Criminal Court. Resolutions include paying fees and taking classes.

Section 4 covers seizure agents, and the requirements to become one. It also gets into the rules and responsibilities once a person becomes an agent. The fact that it’s so detailed can make one wonder how broadly Saskatchewan will be seizing residents’ firearms.

5-3 through 5-6 specify that guns which are seized for enforcing laws, “fair market value” is to be provided. Note: it doesn’t prevent guns from being seized, but just imposes some minimal level of compensation.

5-7(2) prevents residents from commencing any form of litigation against members of this Firearms Compensation Committee. It’s an indemnification clause.

5-8 makes mandatory forensic and ballistic testing for firearms that are seized for criminal history. It’s written as “forensic and ballistic”, suggesting that there may be several different tests that are performed.

5-9 provides the option of forensic and ballistic testing when weapons are seized for other reasons.

5-10 gives the firearm owner the results of any forensic and ballistic testing that has been performed. Nice to see a bit of transparency added in there.

5-11 delays the destruction or deactivation of any firearm until the owner has received notice under 5-10.

6-1 is a way to both limit the cooperation that local police officers or municipalities have with the Government of Canada, as well as accepting financing. Presumably, this is how the “defunding” aspect will work.

6-2(1) gives the Minister broad powers to authorize people to commence investigations to ensure the Act is complied with

6-2(2) defines the scope at which authorized persons may investigate others. And 6-2(2)(d) is rather vague, stating:

(d) any property or assets of or things owned, acquired or alienated in whole or in part by the person being investigated or by any person acting on behalf of or as agent for the person being investigated.

6-2(3) states that the person(s) being investigated have to provide answers, meaning that this isn’t optional.

6-4 gives the Provincial Courts explicit authority to issue search warrants.

6-5 makes it mandatory to generate copies of documents examined during investigation.

6-6(1) list the penalties for obstruction, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

And, in case you believe you’ve been wronged in some way….

Immunity
6-7 No action or proceeding lies or shall be commenced against the Crown, the minister, the chief firearms officer, a firearms officer, the commissioner or any employee of the Crown if that person is acting pursuant to the authority of this Act or the regulations for anything in good faith done, caused or permitted or authorized to be done, attempted to be done or omitted to be done by that person or by any of those persons pursuant to or in the exercise or supposed exercise of any power conferred by this Act or the regulations or in the carrying out or supposed carrying out of any responsibility imposed by this Act or the regulations.

All too common in most legislation is a provision to indemnify the institution, and any actors involved. How would one ever prove bad faith?

Now we get to the worst part:

Regulations
6-8 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations:
(a) defining, enlarging or restricting the meaning of any word or expression used in this Act but not defined in this Act;
(b) exempting any person or class of persons from this Act or any provisions of this Act;
(c) prescribing offences for the purposes of subsection 3-2(1);
(d) prescribing persons or classes of persons for the purposes of subsection3-3(2);
(e) prescribing the form of an order for the purposes of section 3-18;
(f) for the purposes of section 4-1:
(i) prescribing any law as a specified law; and
(ii) exempting any law as a specified law;
(g) excluding any person or class of person from the definition of a seizure agent for the purposes of subsection 4-1(2);
(h) for the purposes of Part 4:
(i) respecting the issuing, renewing, amending, suspending and cancelling of licences;
(ii) respecting information to be provided to the minister by a licensee or an applicant for a licence;
(iii) requiring the payment of fees for the issuance or renewal of licences and prescribing amounts and terms of payment;
(iv) prescribing a code of ethical conduct for persons licensed pursuant to that Part;
(v) prescribing any additional standards, qualifications and training required to obtain a licence;
(vi) respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy;
(vii) prescribing any new terms and conditions of a licence;
(i) prescribing additional factors for the purposes of subsection 5-6(1);
(j) prescribing requirements for the forensic and ballistic testing of the firearm for the purposes of subsection 5-9(3);
(k) prescribing requirements for an approved testing facility for the purposes of section 5-12;
(l) prescribing any matter or thing required or authorized by this Act to be prescribed in the regulations;
(m) respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to carry out the intent of this Act.

That last part, (m) means that virtually anything else can be changed as well. The importance of this cannot be understated.

This is what it means to be “backdoored”: virtually anything in the Saskatchewan Firearms Act can be changed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, without democratic debate. This is very similar to Section 117 of the Canada Firearms Act

As per the earlier comment, it’s interesting (or perhaps a coincidence), that it’s Saskatchewan Bill 117. This is because Section 117 of the Federal version is what allows the Governor in Council to make unilateral changes.

Regarding Section 68(h)(vi), and the phrase: “respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy”, one can’t help but wonder if this could be the basis of a backdoor gun registry.

If there is something positive in Bill 117, it seems that at least gun owners would need to be paid fair price for their weapons once they’re confiscated.

(1) https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1643423488168931330
(2) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/
(3) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/legislative-business/bills/
(4) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/media/1398/progress-of-bills.pdf
(5) Saskatchewan Legislature Progress Of Bills
(6) Saskatchewan Firearms Act 2022
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-firearms-act-and-other-backdoored-legislation/
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html

Posted on

Ontario Private Member’s Bill 94: Creating “Community Safety Zones” By Eliminating Dissent

New Democrat M.P.P. Kristyn Wong-Tam, the Critic for the Attorney General, Small Business and 2SLGBTQI Issues, has introduced Bill 94, Keeping 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Safe Act, 2023. This would apply throughout the Province of Ontario, if passed and implemented.

This could be expensive, with violations of this resulting in fines up to $25,000.

Looking through Wong-Tam’s Twitter account, it’s full of social justice content, and she comes across as a Communist. Not surprising, given her party affiliation.

Granted, the N.D.P. is in opposition, and has no real power in Parliament. However, that’s no guarantee that it won’t be passed eventually. Now, what’s in the Bill?

2 No person shall, within 100 metres of the boundary of a property where a 2SLGBTQI+ community safety zone is located, perform an act of intimidation, including,
.
(a) causing a disturbance within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada);
(b) distributing hate propaganda within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada);
(c) uttering threats or making offensive remarks, either verbally or in writing, with respect to matters of social orientation or gender roles; or
(d) engaging in a protest or demonstration for the purpose of furthering the objectives of homophobia and transphobia.

The Bill would give the Attorney General of Ontario the power to declare any place a “community safety zone”, for a period of time. Of course, the time limits are not defined, nor are the sizes or locations of these zones.

The Attorney General would have the power to go to the courts in order to get an injunction against any person who might violate these. Now, that raises the concern that these would be politically motivated.

The term “community safety zone” is also undefined, and open to interpretation.

No effect on peaceful protests, etc.
5 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents peaceful protests or demonstrations.

Now, on the surface, it appears like there is a safety mechanism to protect free speech and free expression. However, this is rather misleading.

By claiming that the content of a protest or demonstration is offensive, it can be shut down. Similarly, legitimate concerns can be smeared as homophobic or transphobic. Moreover, mere offence is enough to shut down public discourse, and that can be weaponized.

And what about things like child drag shows? Would the public be banned from protesting those, under the guise of safety and tolerance? What about transitioning children into the opposite sex?

The Bill also calls for a 2SLGBTQI+ Safety Advisory Committee to be created. Financial support to implement recommendations is included, which means it will cost taxpayers.

Again, this legislation could very well go nowhere, but nothing is assured.

(1) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-94
(2) https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2023/2023-04/b094_e.pdf
(3) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam
(4) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/1643303503979241483
(5) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/1643328070940499969

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-245 DEFEATED: Would Entrench Climate Change Into Canadian Infrastructure Bank

Last year a Private Member’s Bill was defeated, and it wasn’t widely reported. This is interesting because of the subject matter, namely, embedding climate change into the agenda of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This would have allowed the C.I.B. to become even more of a giant slush fund, doling out money for eco causes.

It was introduced February 8th, 2022, by N.D.P. M.P. Niki Ashton of Manitoba. It was soon defeated in Parliament, on June 22nd.

Of course, the usual disclaimer must be added in: just because this particular Bill was defeated, that doesn’t mean it won’t be reintroduced. Nor does it mean that it won’t be embedded into some larger legislation at some point in the future.

1 Section 6 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act is replaced by the following:
.
Purpose of Bank
6 The purpose of the Bank is to invest in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that are end in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster climate change mitigation or adaptation, or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

3 Section 7 is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
Priority
(1.‍1) In carrying out the functions set out in subsection (1), the Bank must give priority to:
(a) investments from public institutions, all levels of governments and Northern and Indigenous communities;
(b) infrastructure projects that propose measures aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change; and
(c) infrastructure projects that are not harmful to the environment.

4 Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
Membership
(1.‍1) The membership of the Board must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.

Worth noting as well: had this Bill passed in its original form, it would have put racial quotas into the Board of the C.I.B.

  • Canadian Climate Institute
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • ONE Global (Canada)

Environmental Defence Canada is an interesting group to lobby Parliament. Why? Because Nathaniel Wallace, one of their lobbyists, was a Parliamentary Assistant (part Time) for Niki Ashton. No conflict of interest here.

Again, just because this specific Bill was voted down, that doesn’t mean that it won’t come back in some form. Stay vigilant.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-245
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-245/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/niki-ashton(36037)
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=536746
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358871&regId=922011&blnk=1
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=13022&regId=931577

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(H) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(I) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(J) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(K) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(L) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(M) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(N) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(O) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self-Injury Done To Avoid Active Military Service

This is another one that’s a bit of a head scratcher.

New Democrat M.P. Randall Garrison introduced Bill C-206 back in December 2021. This would have removed section 98(c) of the National Defence Act. It would mean that it was no longer an offence to injure or main oneself or another for the purpose of avoiding active service.

Although not specified in the Bill, presumably it would be okay to injure another for this purpose if it was done with the person’s consent.

The timing is also interesting. First Reading was at the end of 2021, when vaccine passports were in full swing. A cynic may wonder if this was part of some coordinated effort to help gut the military, by making it easier for people to get out.

Malingering, aggravating disease or infirmity or injuring self or another
.
98 Every person who
(a) malingers or feigns or produces disease or infirmity,
(b) aggravates, or delays the cure of, disease or infirmity by misconduct or wilful disobedience of orders, or
(c) willfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service,
.
is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he commits the offence on active service or when under orders for active service or in respect of a person on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

It would be interesting whether Garrison came up with this Bill himself, or whether someone else (and who) is really behind it. Somehow, it seems doubtful that it was his idea.

So far, it hasn’t gone past First Reading, but we’ll have to see how it plays out.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=2
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-206
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-206/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/randall-garrison(71995)
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/index.html

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-230: Protecting HCW From MAiD Compulsion DEFEATED
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(H) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(I) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(J) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(K) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(L) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(M) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(N) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(O) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Little Pushback On Efforts To Criminalize “Residential School ‘Denialism'”

This was announced a few weeks back, and it would have been worth watching to any of the free speech warriors in power challenge this proposal. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Last Fall, Winnipeg Member of Parliament Leah Gazan (N.D.P.) pushed a Motion to formally recognize what happened at Residential Schools as a “genocide”. There was no opposition to the Motion, and it appeared to be coordinated between all parties.

However, that apparently wasn’t enough. Now, Gazan is interested in advancing a Bill to make it a hate crime to deny the genocide in the declaration that she helped advance. Presumably this would impact the Human Rights Code of Canada, but could also be applied to the Criminal Code.

NDP MP Leah Gazan, who got the House of Commons last October to unanimously recognize that genocide occurred at residential schools, now wants to take the issue a step further by drafting legislation to outlaw attempts to deny that genocide and make false assertions about residential schools.

“Denying genocide is a form of hate speech,” said Gazan, who represents the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

“That kind of speech is violent and re-traumatizes those who attended residential school.”

Gazan’s proposal is causing controversy, even among those who want the facts about residential schools widely known. But the Office of Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller said he would be interested in reviewing the proposed legislation.

“Residential school denialism attempts to hide the horrors that took place in these institutions,” Miller’s office told CBC News.

This of course flies in the face of the maxim that the best way to counter bad speech is with better speech. It’s unclear whether any such Bill would lead to criminal charges and/or prison sentences for people who violate it.

Gazan’s other legislative efforts include Bill C-223, a guaranteed living income, or U.B.I. She has twice pushed Bill C-232, to create a climate emergency action framework”. She also supports creating a separate notification system for missing Indigenous women. She has also spoken out in favour of decriminalizing sex work (a.k.a. prostitution).

Of course, the precedent for criminalizing “denialism” in Canada has already been set. Kevin Waugh of Manitoba introduced Bill C-250, which would have put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years.

Far from being shocked by this, the Conservative Party of Canada celebrated efforts by one of their M.P.s to criminalize discussion on a controversial topic. Waugh brought Private Member’s Bill C-250, to do just that. It was ultimately abandoned when near identical provisions were put into Bill C-19, an omnibus budget Bill.

As such, it isn’t really a surprise that the “Official Opposition” isn’t pushing back on efforts to ban denialism of Residential Schools. But will any such legislation actually pass? Who knows?

It’s also uncertain to what degree disagreement would be permitted. It’s not specified whether outright denial would be required to constitute hate speech, or just questioning details within.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/Leah-Gazan(87121)
(2) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1585726302044229632
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100
(4) https://twitter.com/CityNewsTO/status/1628425241717538816
(6) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/red-dress-alert-for-missing-indigenous-women/
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-motion-recognize-genocide-1.6632450
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-223
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-232
(10) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-232
(11) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1630956370244542464

HOLOCAUST DENIAL PUNISHABLE BY PRISON TIME:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-230 DEFEATED: Would Protect Health Care Workers From MAiD Compulsion

Anyone hear about Bill C-230? It would have protected health care workers from being compelled to participate in medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. Perhaps it made the news at one point.

It had been introduced by Kelly Block, Member of Parliament for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Saskatchewan, back in March 2022.

Turns out it was defeated in October 2022, along party lines. The vote was 115 in favour, and 208 against. Conservatives supported the Bill, while Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois voted it down.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the purpose of compelling them to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.
.
It also makes it an offence to dismiss from employment or to refuse to employ a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 241.‍2:
Intimidation
241.‍21 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of compelling a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying, uses coercion or any other form of intimidation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Employers
(2) Every person who refuses to employ, or dismisses from their employment, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assist­ance in dying is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It’s hard to believe this is real, but it is. Parliament voted down a Bill that would have protected health care workers from being forced to participate in assisted suicide.

Don’t forget that we still have Bill S-248 in the Senate. That would remove the requirement for final consent for people wanting to end their lives.

In late 2021, Don Davies introduced Bill C-220, which would make it an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing to assault a health care worker. Are we to assume that people in the medical industry need to be protected from violence…. but at the same time, it’s okay to compel them to kill others?

People can be truly evil.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-230
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/186
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kelly-block(59156)
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-230/first-reading
(6) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(7) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-220

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(F) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(G) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(H) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(I) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(J) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(K) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(L) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(M) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(N) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights