Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-229: Banning (Without Defining) Symbols Of Hate

Private Member’s Bill C-229 was introduced in early 2021 by N.D.P. M.P Peter Julian. The stated purpose of this piece is to ban so-called symbols of hate.

This goes far beyond Human Rights Tribunals and fines. This Bill (if passed) would amend the Criminal Code and potentially put people in prison for up to 2 years.

Free speech advocates should be calling out such legislation. However, considering this isn’t a Government Bill, it’s likely that few know about it.

-Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of preventing all forms of hatred or violence against any group that is distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability;
-Whereas Parliament acknowledges past atrocities and violence committed against such groups by persons or organizations whose symbols, emblems, flags and uniforms continue to this day to be used to promote or incite hatred and violence against these groups;
-And whereas it is in the interest of all Canadians to prevent the display or sale of symbols or emblems such as the Nazi swastika and the Ku Klux Klan’s insignia, flags such as the standards of Germany between the years 1933 to 1945 and those of the Confederate States of America between the years 1861 to 1865 and uniforms, including the German and Confederate States of America military dress of those periods, as well as the hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan;

There’s also an obvious pivot here. While the Bill states that it’s in the interest of Canadians to ban Nazi or KKK symbols, the earlier text makes it obvious that the scope is far more broad. Specifically, it lists:

  • colour;
  • race;
  • religion;
  • national or ethnic origin;
  • age;
  • sex;
  • sexual orientation;
  • gender identity or expression;
  • mental or physical disability

Another major problem is there is no distinction between “hate”, and having a lively and controversial discussion. What about protests based on honest beliefs? Could signs, slogans and speech be lumped in with symbols?

Is it a violation of “gender identity or expression” to say that biological men don’t belong in women’s sports, changerooms or prisons? It it hateful to say that there are only 2 genders (assigned from before birth), and that there’s no switching between them?

As for discrimination against age, could pedophiles use this in order to justify actions and behaviours that would otherwise be considered criminal? Would it be illegal now to criticize and condemn them?

There is a further complication. The Bill would add a provision that states no prosecution will happen if in good faith: “including for educational purposes or accurate depiction in a film, and if on reasonable grounds the person believed the display to be proper and for the public benefit”. Now, who’s to say what’s good faith and what’s not?

It appears that such legislation could be selectively applied to target people depending on their ideology. This is so poorly written that it leaves plenty of room for abuse and misapplication.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-229
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-229/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/peter-julian(16399)

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-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(E) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(F) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(G) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(H) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(I) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(J) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy To Address “Environmental Racism”

Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, has introduced Bill C-226. This would compel the Government to create a national strategy to address “environmental racism”.

Most Private Bills don’t become law, at least not right away. However, the content may later get slipped into larger pieces, and get passed with little to no debate. Therefore, it’s worth knowing about all the Bills that are being introduced. This one is about to enter Third Reading in the House of Commons. This could very well pass.

May’s connections with various environmental N.G.O.s has been covered previously, and is worth another look. Being a member of the Trudeau Foundation is only the beginning.

Preamble
-Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need to advance environmental justice across Canada and the importance of continuing to work towards eliminating racism and racial discrimination in all their forms and manifestations;
-Whereas a disproportionate number of people who live in environmentally hazardous areas are members of an Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized community;
-Whereas the establishing of environmentally hazardous sites, including landfills and polluting industries, in areas inhabited primarily by members of those communities could be considered a form of racial discrimination;
-Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that it is important to meaningfully involve all Canadians — and, in particular, marginalized communities — in the development of environmental policy and that racial discrimination in the development of environmental policy would constitute environmental racism;
-Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to assessing and preventing environmental racism and to providing affected communities with the opportunity to participate in, among other things, finding solutions to address harm caused by environmental racism;
-And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that collaboration and a coordinated national strategy are key to promoting effective change and achieving environmental justice;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

There are many problems with this, one of them being that this Bill is so vague. It seems to imply that racism is entrenched in major decisions, and that environmental harm is being used to inflict damage on certain groups. However, there are no specifics on anything within the Bill. “Environmental justice” isn’t defined either, and that’s a major part of this legislation.

It invites the option of people gaslighting with accusations of racism, done under the pretext of protecting the environment. It’s difficult to imagine that such a thing could be written like this, unless it was done: (a) to pander; or (b) to cause chaos and division.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-226/first-reading
(3) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-226
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-226/first-reading
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/whos-pulling-elizabeth-mays-strings/
(6) https://elizabethmaymp.ca/
(7) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elizabeth-may-elected-green-party-leader-again-plans-to-co-lead-with-jonathan-pedneault-1.6160600

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-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(D) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(E) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(F) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(G) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(H) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(I) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies

Bill C-235 has received Royal Assent, which is to be the building of a green economy on the Prairies. As the name implies, this legislation ties development in the West to the climate change agenda.

It was brought in by Liberal Jim Carr, who died of cancer in December 2022. He was the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre. Nonetheless, this Bill did eventually go through.

Content
(3) The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces by
(a) addressing the limited or non-existent transportation options in small cities and communities, and advancing innovative solutions for public transportation services in those cities and communities;
(b) fostering job creation and skills transfer, as evidenced by increased employment, in Prairie regions that rely on traditional energy industries to enable them to build a net-zero emissions green economy and mitigate their impact on climate change;
(c) prioritizing projects that generate natural infrastructure and a clean environment, such as tree-planting initiatives, solar energy projects and environmental management of the boreal forest, and that make use of all sources of energy, including nuclear energy;
(d) supporting the continued development of clean energy in fields such as agriculture, forestry, transportation, manufacturing and tourism;
(e) establishing programs and projects that stimulate a green economy, in a way that takes into account local circumstances, and the participation of local businesses, governments and civil society organizations; and
(f) preparing infrastructure projects that facilitate adaptation to climate change and mitigation of its adverse effects.

On the surface, all of this sounds fine. However, the details of how this would be implemented are pretty sparse. Would industries that are deemed inconsistent be shut down? Would they be starved financially?

Hearings in the House of Commons took place from September to November 2022, and it involved calling 17 witnesses.

  • Thursday, September 22, 2022
  • Thursday, October 6, 2022
  • Monday, October 17, 2022
  • Thursday, October 20, 2022
  • Thursday, November 17, 2022

The Senate also briefly considered the Bill in Committee on December 14, 2022.

So, what happens now that it’s passed? Guess we’ll have to see in the coming months and years. Potentially, it could lead to the further crippling of industries such as oil and gas.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-235
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jim-carr(89059)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-235/royal-assent
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/INDU/report-7/
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/INDU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11727447

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-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(D) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(E) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(F) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(G) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(H) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Senate Bill S-257: Entrenching “Political Belief Or Activity” As Protected Human Rights

With everything that’s going on lately in politics, it’s rare to have something positive to report. However, there is a possible gem in the works. Senate Bill S-257 was introduced by in late 2021 (Conservative) Senator Salma Ataullahjan. Granted, it hasn’t passed, but is still noteworthy.

If this, or something similar get does pass, it would entrench “political belief or activity” as protected grounds within the Human Rights Code of Canada.

Canadian Human Rights Act
.
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, political belief or activity and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Of course, this has the potential to stand other legislation on its head.

Would Bill C-16 (gender identity) have to be reworked or thrown out? Would it now be protected speech to say that men are men, and women are women? What about laws to put Holocaust deniers in prison? What about Iqra Khalid’s M-103 (Islamophobia) Motion from several years ago? What about “hate speech” restrictions criticizing immigration and multiculturalism? What about anti-lockdown protests over the last few years that violated “public health” orders from unelected bureaucrats?

It’s entirely possible Bill S-257 will never pass. However, it does have the potential to invalidate draconian legislation on the grounds of free speech. We’ll have to see.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=2
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-257
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-257/first-reading

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of International Pandemic Treaty

Remember the hype in 2022 about a a proposed Global Pandemic Treaty? This was supposed to be an agreement that would give the World Health Organization binding legal authority over elected Governments. That seems to have stalled, at least to the casual observer.

Of course, the W.H.O. already has binding legal authority over Member States, which includes Canada. Anyone who’s ever read their Constitution would know that. That said, it doesn’t stop politicians from slipping in their rules in domestic legislation.

Private Member’s Bill C-293 was sponsored by Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York). The content of which is interesting, to say the least.

Most Private Bills don’t become law. However, their content may become embedded into other legislation, and rammed through without proper debate and consideration.

Erskine-Smith isn’t a big player in Canadian politics. So, it’s strange that he would introduce something like this. Have to wonder if he wrote any of it.

Preamble
Whereas the costs of prevention and preparedness measures are insignificant in comparison to the human and economic costs of a pandemic;

Whereas Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to those efforts;

Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);

Whereas a One Health approach — a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface — is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics;

And whereas this approach requires sustained collaboration among various ministers, all levels of government and Indigenous communities;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

There is something of a bait-and-switch here. While the Bill is presented as cooperation between various Governments in Canada, it’s clear that it also involves supra-national control.

Plan — contents
(2) The pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must

(a) set out a summary of mitigation strategies that the Minister of Health intends to implement in order to prevent the risk of and prepare for disease outbreaks that could lead to pandemics, as well as a projected timeline for their implementation;

Should we just state the obvious? They aren’t preparing for future outbreaks. Instead, this is laying the groundwork to erase more of people’s rights under the pretext of an outbreak.

(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and

Contact tracing is just a means to implement mass surveillance.

(i) the manufacturing capacity in Canada with respect to any product relevant to pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified, and

Expect more taxpayer money to be pumped into “building up reserves”, regardless of whether such items would ever be used. Think of the millions of vaccines that are going to waste.

(ii) the communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools, including electronic applications that enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics;

Building the infrastructure for electronic monitoring of “infected” people?! Canada already has a system in place to track people on parole and probation. Why would such an expansion be necessary, unless they were anticipating a massive influx?

(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,

(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

Going back to the 2017 Federal Budget, millions were pumped into the “alternative protein” industry. Considering that this Bill also talks about reducing natural agriculture, a cynic may wonder if this is done to force citizens to take these alternative “foods”.

(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;

The suggestion has been made many times before, that this can be used as an excuse to attack the food supply. As such, the public would be forced to starve, or seek other alternative foods.

(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,

This is essentially merging the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda with the W.H.O.’s goals. Sorts of sounds like the GREAT RESET, which was just a conspiracy theory.

(ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets, and

Phase out live animal markets? Is this a way to help manufacture a food shortage? Could this be done by claiming that entire farms are “at risk”, and then culling them to protect the public?

(n) include a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the measures that that minister intends to take to support global health equity, including measures to increase public health capacity around the world and to ensure equitable access to vaccines, testing equipment and treatment;

(o) set out, in consultation with relevant ministers, a summary of key cooperative measures or agreements on disease outbreak prevention and preparedness between the Government of Canada, other foreign governments and key international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and

Here’s where it hits home. This will not simply be a Canadian system. Instead, it will be done in collaboration with:

  • Foreign Governments
  • World Health Organization
  • United Nations Environment Programme
  • U.N. Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization

Read the entire Bill to make sure that nothing is being taken out of context. But this looks like a way to slip even more draconian measures onto the public.

And again, there has been — to my knowledge — any debate or reporting on this Bill. Why exactly is that? Isn’t this in the public interest?

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Without regurgitating the whole thing, the W.H.O. Constitution has been covered before, including the fact that it’s legally binding on Member States.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Why does an unknown like Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduce such a Bill? According to his Wikipedia page, he’s actually brought forward several pieces. This included (in the last Parliament) Bill C-235 to delete the drug possession offence from the Criminal Code. He also brought Bill C-236, to expand diversion alternatives for criminal cases involving drugs.

Whether or not this “Pandemic Treaty” ever goes ahead, this legislation seems designed to carry out the goals it was intended for. Perhaps this should be put to a public debate.

Again, why is this being done quietly in a Private Member’s Bill?

(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Erskine-Smith
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-235
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-236

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-219: Introducing “Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights”

Private Member’s Bill C-219 has a number of interesting parts, which should make people wary about the intent and purpose of it. It was introduce by N.D.P. M.P. Richard Cannings. As always, it can’t be assured that this won’t become law, or be embedded into other legislation at some point.

This Bill is to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. Sounds harmless enough, doesn’t it? Let’s see what it says.

Paramountcy of Principles of Environmental Law
Environmental law principles
5 Every enactment must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law, including

(a) the precautionary principle according to which where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

(b) the polluter-pays principle according to which polluters must bear the cost of measures to reduce pollution according to the extent of either the damage done to society or the exceeding of an acceptable level of pollution;

(c) the principle of sustainable development according to which development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

(d) the principle of intergenerational equity according to which present generations of Canadians hold the environment in trust for future generations and have an obligation to use its resources in a way that leaves that environment in the same, or better, condition for future generations; and

(e) the principle of environmental justice according to which there should be a just distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among Canadians, without discrimination on the basis of any ground prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To be blunt, this sounds somewhat Communistic. It gives the Government the right to act, even if there isn’t really a scientific or informed basis for doing so. Taken to its logical outcome, property could be seized, or businesses could be shut down in the name of protecting environmental rights.

The “polluter pays” is a reiteration of the climate change/Carbon tax initiatives that are ongoing, and is just wealth redistribution. If Carbon Dioxide is considered pollution, then almost anything can be.

All of this talk about equity and environmental justice also sounds like redistribution, but with language designed to conceal what’s really going on.

Things get interesting when you realize that anyone (at least in theory) can bring a Court challenge to protect their “environmental rights”.

Right of access to courts
9 (1) Every person residing in Canada has the right to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal regardless of whether or not they are directly affected by the matter.

No challenge to standing
(2) The Government of Canada must not challenge the standing of a person residing in Canada to bring a matter regarding the protection of the environment before a court or tribunal on the sole ground that the person is not directly affected by the matter.

Right to request review
10 Every person residing in Canada has the right to request the Auditor General to review, in accordance with section 22 of the Auditor General Act, any Act of Parliament respecting the environment, any instrument made under the authority of such an Act or any environmental policy of the Government of Canada to determine whether, in order to ensure respect for the rights conferred under this Act, it should be amended, repealed or revoked.

Anyone familiar with the Court system knows that you need “standing” to bring a challenge. This means private interest standing (impacts you directly), or public interest standing (impacts society). This Bill would imply that public interest is automatic, so there’d be no need to prove a direct impact.

Also worth noting is that it says anyone “residing in Canada”. It doesn’t specify Canadian citizens. It also doesn’t say that people bringing such challenges have to be in country legally.

It would also amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding this section:

Canadian Bill of Rights
37 Paragraph 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights is replaced by the following:
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, including to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as defined in section 2 of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

But here’s where that may get tricky: yes, the Bill of Rights mentions property rights. However, when anyone has public interest standing to bring a legal challenge, how secure are your property rights? How would we realistically decide which rights prevail?

And what happens if the Government decides to appropriate your property in some way on the grounds that it violates other people’s rights to a healthy environment?

The Bill’s sponsor, Richard Cannings, is listed 375 times in the Lobby Registry of Federal officials. In fairness though, many of these have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Cannings’ recent meetings include representatives from:

  • Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Foundation
  • Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
  • Climate Action Network Canada
  • Ecojustice Canada
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • Greenpeace Canada
  • Nature Canada
  • The Nature Conservancy of Canada
  • World Wildlife Fund Canada

There’s considerable overlap with Rosa Galvez’s Bill S-243.

It’s fair to ask who wrote Bills C-219 and S-243.

As we’ve seen with the 2005 Quarantine Act, and various Provincial Public Health Acts, harmless sounding legislation can be used as a basis to trample rights. While this environmental “Bill of Rights” seems great at first glance, how would things actually work?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-219
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/richard-cannings(89327)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-219/first-reading
(5) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-12.3/page-1.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1675642237504