4. Legislation

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law)

Bill C-40 proposes to reform the miscarriage of justice review process in the Criminal Code and establish an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission to review, investigate and decide which cases should be returned to the justice system due to a potential miscarriage of justice.

• I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights completed its study of Bill C-40 and has referred it back to the House of Commons.
• The goal of creating an independent commission is to help improve access to justice by making it easier and faster for potentially wrongfully convicted people to have their applications reviewed, including for Indigenous peoples, Black persons and members of other racialized or marginalized populations.
• Ultimately, the goal is to identify and remedy more wrongful convictions that have not yet been addressed. Addressing miscarriages of justice more quickly would help to mitigate the devastating impact they have on the potentially wrongfully convicted person, their family, victims and the integrity of justice system.
• Question: What is the Commission’s budget and how will outcomes compare to the Criminal Conviction Review Group?
  • Answer: The Government will ensure that the Commission has the capacity to handle a higher volume of applications and make decisions faster than the current ministerial review process. To ensure that the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission has the resources that it needs to operate effectively and efficiently, Budget 2023 provided $83.9 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $18.7 million ongoing.
• Question: How will the new commission-led process improve upon the current ministerial review process?
  • Answer: An independent commission, with 5 to 9 commissioners dedicated exclusively to miscarriage of justice reviews, would have a greater capacity to review miscarriage of justice claims more quickly.
  • Bill C-40 also proposes to provide more flexibility in admitting applications for a review, in the threshold to conduct investigations and in the legal test for referral of cases back to the justice system.
  • It also adds new decision-making factors to take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and the distinct challenges that applicants who belong to certain populations face in obtaining a remedy for a miscarriage of justice, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous and Black applicants.

Background

The legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-40, which was introduced on February 16, 2023, would allow the Government of Canada to implement its plan to establish a new commission, as an independent administrative body, to review miscarriage of justice applications. Bill C-40 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things:

1. establish an independent body to be called the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission;
2. replace the review process set out in Part XXI.1 of the Criminal Code with a process in which applications for reviews of findings and verdicts on the grounds of miscarriage of justice are made to the Commission instead of to the Minister of Justice;
3. confer on the Commission powers of investigation to carry out its functions;
4. provide that the Commission may direct a new trial or hearing or refer a matter to the court of appeal if it has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so;
5. authorize the Commission to provide supports to applicants in need and to provide the public, including potential applicants, with information about its mandate and miscarriages of justice; and require the Commission to make and publish policies and to present and publish annual reports that include demographic and performance measurement data.

Since the Bill was introduced, and particularly since the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights started its study on October 31, 2023, many interested stakeholders have expressed concerns about the need for adequate funding in order to ensure that the Commission will have the capacity to handle a higher volume of applications and make decisions faster than the current ministerial review process.

Budget 2023 provided $83.9 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $18.7 million ongoing for the independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission. The announced funding would allow for the full complement of commissioners to be appointed: a full-time Chief Commissioner and 8 part-time commissioners. The announced funding would also allow for significantly more staff, including case reviewers, compared to currently, as well as for programs such as outreach and supports to applicants in need.

An independent commission dedicated exclusively to miscarriage of justice reviews will help improve access to justice by making it easier and faster for potentially wrongfully convicted people to have their applications reviewed, including for Indigenous people, Black persons, and members of other racialized or marginalized populations. Addressing miscarriages of justice more quickly will help to mitigate the devastating impact they have on the convicted person, their family, victims and the integrity of justice system. The Government of Canada is committed to reforming and improving Canada’s justice system to ensure that all Canadians have access to fair and just treatment before the law. Bill C-40 seeks to make progress on that commitment and, in doing so, increase public confidence in the justice system.

Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Bill C-63 proposes to hold social media services accountable for addressing harmful content on their platforms and for creating a safer online space that protects all people in Canada, especially children.

• On February 26^th, Bill C-63 was tabled in Parliament, which would enact a new Online Harms Act and amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service.
• The Online Harms Act would provide a framework to ensure that social media services are transparent and accountable for reducing users’ exposure to harmful content on their services and how that content is managed.
• The Bill makes important changes to the Criminal Code to create a new hate crime offence, increase penalties for hate propaganda and for advocating or promoting genocide, and create a new peace bond to help prevent hate propaganda offences and hate crimes from being committed. Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act would define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online. Finally, amendments to An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service would enhance efforts to respond to crimes of child sexual exploitation.
• This proposal delivers on joint mandate letter commitments for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister of Justice to “develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host”. This commitment was also made by the Governor General in the 2021 Speech from the Throne. Related commitments concerning combating hate were also included in mandate letters of the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth.
• The Online Harms Act will benefit Canadians in a number of ways. It would ultimately reduce exposure to harmful content on social media platforms, would put in place special protections for children and stronger reporting mechanisms for child pornography. There would be increased public oversight of and accountability from online services, including access to better data on how they protect their users.
• The Bill will require that social media services, including live-streaming and adult-content services, to actively reduce exposure to hateful and harmful content on their services, including putting in place special protections for children. Users should have the tools and resources they need to report harmful content and require online services to take action, even requiring the expeditious removal of two specific types of content: content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent.
• Question: What entities would be regulated? What type of content would they regulate?
  • Answer: The Online Harms Act sets out obligations for social media services, including live-streaming and adult-content services. To be subject to the Online Harms Act, services would need to have a minimum number of users in Canada. This threshold for scope would be set out in Governor in Council regulations, following a public consultation. It is critical that the online services most used by Canadians are subject to adequate regulation. For smaller services that may pose a significant risk of exposing users to harmful content, the Governor in Council may make regulations that would include them under the framework.
  • The legislation would define seven types of harmful content:
    • Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
    • Intimate content communicated without consent;
    • Content used to bully a child;
    • Content that induces a child to harm themselves;
    • Content that foments hatred;
    • Content that incites violence; and,
    • Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.
• Online services would also be required to report in their Digital Safety Plans on other harmful content beyond the seven defined categories so the Commission, the Government and Parliament are made aware of any emerging harms.
• Question: Doesn’t this Bill violate freedom of speech?
  • The kinds of harmful content that this Bill would address makes it harder for people to fully participate online because they feel scared, vulnerable, or threatened. In a safer and more inclusive online environment, people in Canada are more willing to exercise their right to free expression.
  • The Bill, through the Online Harms Act, includes removal requirements only in the most serious circumstances, with respect to content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. The Online Harms Act defines harmful content narrowly to focus on extreme and marginal expression, leaves untouched political and other discourse, and sets out fair and transparent processes that allow public participation and scrutiny.

Background

Bill C-63

On February 26^th, you tabled Bill C-63 in Parliament, which will enact the new Online Harms Act and amend the Criminal Code, Canadian Human Rights Act and the Mandatory Reporting Act. The main goal is to make the online environment a more inclusive and safer place for Canadians.

Under the new Online Harms Act, social media services would be required to ensure that tools and processes are in place to make the Internet a safer place for Canadians. It is essential that the most vulnerable Canadians, including children and equity-deserving groups are protected online and have a safe space to express themselves and communicate with others.

The Online Harms Act aims to enhance online safety by reducing the exposure to harmful content on social media services, with a special emphasis on protecting children. This is in line with risk-based or duty of care approaches that jurisdictions like the UK, Australia and the EU have adopted.

The Act would apply to social media services, which includes user-uploaded adult content services and live-streaming services, but does not include private messaging.

The Act defines 7 categories of harmful content, which would be regulated:

1. Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor
2. Content used to bully a child;
3. Content that induces a child to harm themselves.
4. Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
5. Content that incites violence
6. Content that foments hatred
7. Intimate content communicated without consent, which includes deepfakes of intimate images

Obligations for regulated entities

The Act sets out 3 duties that platforms will need to adhere to:

1. Duty to Act Responsibly
   • Regulated services would need to implement measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk of exposure to harmful content on the service
   • Provide users with user empowerment tools including the ability to flag content or block other users
   • Submitting Digital Safety Plans; disclosing any analysis of new risks or trends related to online safety; and provide anonymized data sets to qualified researchers
2. Duty to Protect Children
   • Regulated services would need to integrate design features to protect children, such as age-appropriate design features as we have seen in the UK.
3. Duty to Make Certain Content Inaccessible
   • Regulated services would need to remove two types of content within 24 hours of becoming aware of it, pending final decision - Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; and Intimate content communicated without consent

New machinery and subsequent funding implications

The Online Harms Act would create a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada to oversee and enforce the Act; a Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada to advocate for and support victims and a Digital Safety Office of Canada which supports both administratively.

The Digital Safety Commission would carry out its mandate by, among other things: enforcing legislative and regulatory obligations and holding online services accountable for their responsibilities under the Online Harms Act through auditing for compliance, issuing compliance orders, and penalizing services that fail to comply; intaking, triaging and administering user complaints and reports about services’ obligations under all three duties; and, enforcing the removal of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent.

The Digital Safety Ombudsperson would act as a point of contact and a resource for users and victims and would advocate for users’ needs and interests on systemic issues regarding online safety. Appointed on a five-year term, the Ombudsperson would: gather information from users on an ongoing basis, and issue calls for written submissions to solicit views on specific issues; conduct consultations with users and victims; direct users to proper resources such as law enforcement or help lines; and develop advice, publish public reports and advocate for users to the Commission, the Government, and social media services calling attention to frequent, severe, or systemic issues from a user perspective.

The Digital Safety Office’s mandate would be to support the operations of both the Commission and the Ombudsperson.

The Department of Canadian Heritage would be responsible for supporting the standing up of this new machinery. Funding would be required for the new regulatory machinery once the new legislation comes into force and the Chief Executive Officer of the Office is appointed and receives its financial authorities from Treasury Board.

Amendments to other legislation

This Bill also makes important changes to three other Acts, which contributes to the goal of protecting of people in Canada, including the most vulnerable:

1. Amendments to the Criminal Code
   • Creating a new standalone hate crime that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament; increasing the penalties for the four existing hate propaganda offences; creating a new peace bond designed to prevent hate propaganda offences and hate crimes; and a definition of hatred based on the existing Canadian case law (focusing on “detestation or vilification”) would be added.
2. Canadian Human Rights Act
   • Amendments would define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online; empower people to file complaints against the person posting the hate speech to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
3. Amendments to the Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service
   • Clarifying that the Act applies to all types of Internet services, including social media services and other application-based services; improving coordination of reporting by creating authority to centralize mandatory reporting of child pornography offences to the police; assisting law enforcement and prosecutors by extending data preservation; providing authority for annual reports; and requiring that services send transmission data to police with respect to content that is manifestly child pornography.

Bill S-11, A Fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law (Harmonization)

The Fourth omnibus harmonization bill, passed by the Senate and introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 2023, aims to harmonize federal legislation with the private law of the provinces and territories in order for each linguistic version to take into account civil law and common law.

• The Fourth Harmonization Bill results from the harmonization initiative of the Department of Justice. Harmonization consists of revising federal legislation in order that it adequately reflects the terminology and concepts of Quebec civil law and common law in both official languages.
• The Fourth Harmonization Bill supports the commitment related to our mandate to promote access to justice. The bill also aligns with the Government’s commitment to encourage the use of both Canada’s official languages.
• The Fourth Harmonization Bill contributes to the promotion of access to justice through the use in federal legislation of language that allows Canadians to recognize, in both French and English, the legal traditions of civil law and common law.
• This bill also ensures a more efficient application of federal legislation by making the intention of the legislator clearer, particularly in the civil law context.
• Question: Which federal laws would be harmonized by the Fourth Harmonization Bill?
  • Answer: The Fourth Harmonization Bill would amend 51 laws including the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, Access to Information Act, Financial Administration Act, Interpretation Act and the Official Languages Act.
• Question: Is the Fourth Harmonization Bill only intended to harmonize federal legislation with the civil law of the province of Quebec?
  • Answer: No. The bill also harmonizes federal legislation with the private law of all provinces and territories, including common law provinces and territories.

Background

Bill S-11, the fourth harmonization bill, is a result of the harmonization initiative established by the Department of Justice (DOJ) following the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) in 1994. In 1995, the DOJ adopted the Policy on Legislative Bijuralism. This policy aims to provide Canadians with access to federal legislative texts that, when dealing with private law issues, reflect, in both official languages, the legal system that applies to them. Since 1998, the DOJ has harmonized federal legislation with the private law of the provinces and territories, in particular with the civil law of Quebec. To date, three harmonization bills have been adopted (2001, 2004 and 2011).

Harmonization has its basis in Canadian bijuralism. Bijuralism is one of the manifestations of Canadian pluralism and the expression of the coexistence of the civil law and common law in Canada. Subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives rise to this co-existence by giving the provinces a broad residuary power over property and civil rights. Federal legislation also grants this power over property and civil rights to the territories.

Bill S-11 would amend 51 statutes that fall under the responsibility of the following nine departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, National Defence, Finance Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Justice Canada, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

The Bill would make a number of harmonization amendments to the following four statutes that govern financial institutions: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. It would also harmonize a number of other statutes, including the Access to Information Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Interpretation Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act.

Finally, the Bill contains consequential harmonization amendments to three statutes, which are necessary in order to ensure consistency with the harmonization proposals to the four statutes that govern financial institutions.

The proposed amendments are technical in nature and are non-controversial. The resulting changes are terminological. These changes are not intended to alter the legislative policy underlying the provisions in question. Rather, they ensure that the policy behind these provisions is implemented in light of both the common law and the civil law, in both official languages.

A public consultation was held from February 1^st to May 1^st, 2017. A consultation document which included harmonization proposals was posted on the DOJ’s public consultations internet site for the duration of the consultation period. Interested Canadians were invited to comment. In accordance with the established practice, the consultation document was also sent to more than four hundred key stakeholders and members of the legal community, including: provincial and territorial Justice Ministers and their Deputy Ministers; Canadian associations of provincial and superior court judges; Canadian Judicial Council; provincial and territorial law societies; la Chambre des notaires du Québec; the Canadian Bar Association; associations of French language jurists outside Quebec; law professors and experts on civil law and comparative law; interested law practitioners; and, financial institutions sector stakeholders.

Results from the public consultation have shown that the harmonization initiative continues to be favourably received by the legal community stakeholders and has confirmed that stakeholders support the proposed amendments included in the consultation document.

Bill S-11 was passed without amendment by the Senate on December 15, 2022. The Bill was read a first time in the House of Commons on February 7, 2023.

Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Bill S-13 proposes to add a section 35 related non-derogation clause to the Interpretation Act, repeal most existing non-derogation clauses in other acts, and make coordinating amendments.

• Non-derogation clauses (NDCs) are provisions in laws that are intended to signal that the legislation should be interpreted to uphold constitutionally-protected rights, such as section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Under Bill S-13, a NDC would be added to the Interpretation Act, which would apply to all federal statutes and regulations.
• In many respects, this is an Indigenous-led initiative. Bill S-13 reflects a longstanding priority of Modern Treaty and Self-Governing Nations and Inuit.
• We have been working on this initiative in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples since 2021. Justice heard from many modern Treaty, First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments, and representative organizations. There was broad support for the NDC initiative. The views of Indigenous peoples were key in informing the work on this Bill.
• Question: Why doesn’t Bill S-13 propose a clause that the interpretation of federal laws must be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
  • Answer: The proposed amendments in Bill S-13 respond to longstanding calls from Indigenous peoples for the addition of a NDC on section 35 rights to the Interpretation Act and this was the focus of Justice Canada’s consultation and cooperation process. Consultation and cooperation on a potential UN Declaration interpretive provision has not occurred. The UN Declaration Act Action Plan includes a commitment to explore amending the Interpretation Act or other laws to provide for the use of the UN Declaration in the interpretation of federal enactments. Further, the interpretation of all Canadian laws, including the Constitution, can already be informed by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, affirmed in the preamble and section 4 of the UN Declaration Act. This view was also confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its February 2024 opinion on the constitutionality of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families Act.
• Question: Why was it necessary to maintain NDCs in three pieces of legislation?
  • Answer: We heard from Indigenous partners that NDCs should remain in legislation where Indigenous peoples were specifically impacted by those pieces of legislation. For the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the impacted Indigenous partners preferred the retention of their specific NDC, but agreed to harmonize the wording with the proposed NDC in the Interpretation Act. With respect to the Shíshálh [pronounced “si-shall"] Nation Self-Government Act, the Shíshálh strongly preferred to retain the specific wording of the NDC in this statute. Part of what makes this NDC unique is that it specifically refers to Shíshálh Nation’s Aboriginal rights. For the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, Justice Canada did not hear back from the Mohawks of Kanesatake regarding the NDC initiative. The decision was made to respect the earlier negotiations that informed that act, and leave the NDC as-is.

Background

Key dates in the parliamentary process so far include:

• June 8, 2023 - Bill S-13 was introduced in the Senate of Canada by Senator Marc Gold.
• June 20, 2023 - Second reading occurred, with the speech by sponsoring Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson.
• September 27, 2023 - Second reading was completed and the Bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
• October 25, 2023 - The first meeting of the Committee’s study occurred, with an appearance by the Minister.
• October 25 to November 2, 2023 - Witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee. Many Indigenous partners appeared at these hearings.
• November 8, 2023 - Clause-by-clause consideration occurred. Senator Prosper proposed an amendment to Bill S-13 to include a provision regarding consistency with the UN Declaration. This proposed amendment was not passed.
• November 30, 2023 - Bill S-13 was referred for Third Reading.
• December 14, 2023 - Third Reading occurred, and Bill S-13 was referred to the House.
• February 26, 2024 - First Reading of Bill S-13 occurred in the House. The date for Second Reading has not yet been set.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Bill

Bill to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.

• The Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program (MSLA) is a periodic legislative exercise that allows minor, non-controversial amendments to be efficiently made to multiple federal statutes in one omnibus bill, instead of making such amendments in many bills.
• The thirteenth MSLA Proposals Document, which contains the proposed amendments, has been studied by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Following the committee review, the next step is the introduction of a Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment bill, which is based on the reports of the two committees, and contains only the proposed amendments approved by both committees. In sum, the bill amends 58 acts and three related regulations amending approximately 545 provisions.
• The MSLA contributes to the promotion of access to justice by resulting in a cleaner statute book containing fewer errors, spent provisions and archaisms, increasing the equal treatment of our country’s two legal traditions and official languages by aligning the French and English text to avoid bilingual interpretation questions.
• This Program also ensures the efficient application of federal legislation by making the intention of the legislator clearer and removing any possible interpretation questions caused by minor, non-controversial issues in federal legislation.
• Question: Which federal laws would be amended by the MSLA?
  • Answer: The thirteenth MSLA proposes to amend 58 laws and three regulations including terminological changes to the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, the Agriculture and Agri-food Administrative Penalties Act and Interpretation Act.
• Question: Does the MSLA program accept any amendments to federal legislation?
  • Answer: No. Amendments accepted for the MSLA must meet all of the following criteria: must not be controversial; must not involve the spending of public funds; must not prejudicially affect the rights of persons; and must not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.

Background

The current proposals document is part of the thirteenth Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Program (MSLA) process. This initiative was established by the Department of Justice, with the approval of Cabinet in 1975 as a way to accelerate the adoption of minor amendments of a non-controversial nature to be made to federal legislation. Since the MSLA program was established, 12 MSLA Acts have been passed; the most recent in 2017.

The MSLA program is a periodic legislative exercise used to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology or errors in federal statutes in one bill, instead of making such amendments in the context of a separate legislative initiative. To qualify, a proposed amendment must meet the following criteria:

• not be controversial;
• not involve the spending of public funds;
• not prejudicially affect the rights of persons; or
• not create new offences or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.

[Redacted]

The parliamentary process for introducing an MSLA bill is different from the usual process. A document containing proposed amendments is tabled for review by a committee of each House. The document containing the proposed amendments referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (LCJC) and to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (JUST). Those committees review the proposed amendments and present a report of their findings to their respective Houses. Since a proposed amendment must not be controversial, approval of a proposed amendment requires the consensus of the committee. Therefore, if a committee member objects to a proposed amendment, it will not be included in the MSLA bill. The bill is then drafted based on the reports of the committees.

The thirteenth MSLA process would amend 58 statutes that fall under the responsibility of 19 departments. The proposals document suggests amendments to modernize outdated terminology in many acts including: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Aeronautics Act. It would also correct the name of courts and tribunals in other statutes, including the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code, the Divorce Act, the Interpretation Act, and the Official Languages Act. Finally, the proposals document contains proposed amendments to address issues identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, to align the French and English text, to modernize language and to correct errors.

The Proposals document was tabled in the Senate on June 20, 2023 and has been studied by the LCJC. The LCJC tabled its Twenty-First Report on December 12, 2023 in which, it excluded one proposal as it did not meet the non-controversial criteria for the MSLA, and three others were withdrawn from the process as they were included in other legislative initiatives.

The Proposals document was also tabled in the House of Commons on June 16, 2023 and was studied by the JUST Committee. The Committee’s Twenty-First report tabled on February 12, 2024 also rejected four proposals.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page