Dead Acts and Fat Cats – ‘The Persistent Decline of Social Welfare Law’

As the April federal election approaches, an issue that has receded from the public consciousness is the significant loss of social legislation upon the prorogation of Parliament that preceded the Liberal Leadership Convention. Such pauses are commonplace, but in this instance, it drew widespread criticism across strata of society due to the threat of unprovoked economic warfare from the Trump administration and the number of government bills that died on the order paper.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, for example, criticized the government for failing to pass the pension fairness measures and tax breaks promised in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement. Blakes LLP highlighted the death of Bills that would have addressed regulatory gaps in digital policy and improved wellbeing. A guest on The Current lamented the loss of Bill C-63, aimed at combating online sexploitation schemes, and another decried the death of Bill C-61, awaiting Third Reading, which would have affirmed the Indigenous right to water under s. 35 of the Constitution Act., meeting Trudeau’s promise of clean water to all Indigenous communities. (Cimellaro). Its death represents a colossal failure for the Government.

Bill C-61 and Bill C-63 were not the only potentially transformational social welfare statutes that died. Bill C-72 would have ensured accessibility and interoperability of increasingly digitalized patient data across different platforms and jurisdictions, a belated recognition that ineffective access to and use of health data represents a profound impediment to patient safety and outcomes in Canada. Additionally, it would have prevented proprietary data-blocking and imposed penalties on software providers for statutory breaches.

Although Private Members’ Bills survive prorogation and regain their prior position on the order paper, the dissolution of Parliament for an election has meant that all previous legislative business must be reintroduced if the new Parliamentarians wish to pursue it. In addition, many of the most ambitious Bills of the 1st Session of the 44th Parliament had been Private Members’ Bills, not Government Bills, and these habitually face substantial obstacles. Too often they ‘die on the vine’ before completing the legislative gauntlet owing to their marginalized position on the order paper, and many have been repeatedly introduced across multiple sessions and have failed to achieve adoption. Consequently, their intended public good remains elusive.

We contend that the death of these Bills upon both prorogation and the election call is indicative of the impoverished position that social legislation—particularly that aimed at population health—holds in Canada under all governments. Examples that demonstrate this include:

Bill C-303, for example, was introduced in the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament. If adopted, this Bill would have led to the creation of a national health data collection and practices strategy. The importance of creating such a framework was clearly demonstrated by the shortcomings in information dissemination and data sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bill C-277, also carried over from the 43rd Parliament, would have created an inclusive and coordinated response to treating and managing brain injuries, addressing awareness, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and recovery so that mental health issues, addiction, homelessness, and criminality stemming from brain injuries could be minimized.

Bill C-217, which outlined a conservation strategy to address growing threats to Canada’s freshwater reserves, was introduced in the 42nd, 43rd, and 44th Parliaments, and has yet to be adopted. The framework envisioned would have required consulting with Indigenous groups, municipal government representatives, climate scientists, and environmental groups in decision-making and necessitated the use of their expertise. Such a collaborative approach is essential given the complexity of environmental/climate issues and the current assault on science.

Bill C-322, introduced as a Private Members’ Bill in the 42nd, 43rd, and 44th Parliaments, sought to address food insecurity by ensuring substantive equality in food access to all children in Canada’s schools. It would have ensured that fewer children would be hindered by hunger or inadequate nutrition, and would have served as a step toward greater equity in the classroom. Originally introduced by the NDP, it was reintroduced by the Liberals, but even two-party support failed to see it across the finish line.

While it is evident that the January 6^th prorogation has severely compromised the tackling of significant and pervasive public health issues, it is not a failure unique to this event; neglect in adopting social legislation is endemic. And while one might argue that the non-adoption of Private Members’ Bills is natural given that they may not have a place within the Government’s plans, or may require unbudgeted spending, the fact that the subjects of these Bills are consistently relegated to Private Members’ Bills is telling.

In addition to a critical evaluation and overhaul of the Order of Precedence procedure, more fundamental structural reform of Canada’s legislative process is warranted. Failed Liberal leadership candidate, Frank Baylis, recommended the adoption of a secondary legislative chamber such as those used in Australia and the UK. The Australian Parliament, for instance, parliament created the Federation Chamber in 1994 to help remediate this issue. This ‘chamber’, actually a Parliamentary Committee, has provided a secondary venue for the debate and adoption of legislation of a simple and uncontroversial nature. According to a recent 30-year review, this addition has served its purpose effectively, permitting an additional 15,000 instruments to be debated and providing the opportunity for other Bills to be more fulsomely debated in the main chamber, which may have otherwise failed to complete the legislative process. The introduction of an additional chamber in the Canadian Parliament would allow for concurrent debate between it and the Commons, helping to remediate Parliament’s persistent failure to advance social welfare legislation through the legislative process.

The benefit of more time for legislative deliberation notwithstanding, the absence of political will to prioritize social legislation remains unresolved. Recall that two of the Trudeau Government’s marquee “progressive” achievements—pharmacare and dental care—were largely the product of the NDP’s influence under the Supply & Confidence Agreement between the two parties. With its conclusion, proactive public health initiatives seem uncertain despite the Government’s pledge to continue with dental care expansion. For example, in his leadership bid, Prime Minister Carney repeatedly declared that the economy would be his Government’s focus, and he stressed decreased spending and increased investment. The Liberal right-of-centre disposition is also exposed by the deflated cabinet named in March 2025, which dispensed with portfolios mentioning labour, disability, gender, or women. Though the recent polls suggest a Liberal resurgence, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Conservatives could emerge victorious. Their platform advances a tax-cutting agenda that would similarly prioritize the economy and spending cuts, that would defund harm reduction programs for substance use disorder, and that is ambiguous about the long-term future of pharmacare, dental care, and childcare programs. And Mr. Poilievre has, with other alt-right advocates, decried ‘wokeism’ and expressed his belief in only binary genders.

Regardless of who emerges as Prime Minister in the post pork-barrelling, fat-cat appeasement feeding frenzy that is elections and new Governments, the prospect of the lost Bills being reintroduced and adopted would seem to range from uncertain to laughably unlikely. Nonetheless, we implore legislators of all political affiliations and allegiances to do more to ensure that socially supportive and equitable legislation is adopted. If we are to enjoy a future where sustained programs reverse the growing social disparities and Canadian population health and wellbeing flourishes, it is our collective responsibility to demand and deliver a bold legislative agenda that prioritises and meets these urgent needs.

– Joshua Langston, Shawn H.E. Harmon, Janice E. Graham
Technoscience & Regulation Research Unit, Dalhousie University