One of these reforms gave greater authority to MPs serving as Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister, in contrast to their previous role that had been largely clerical with little purview over government policy.

Prior to the C-260, the Canadian Ministry of Health estimated that unattended cigarettes resulted in 2085 fires, 70 deaths and $28.1 million in damages to property.

[8] In 2006 McKay introduced Private Members’ Bill C-293, which called for significant changes to the manner in which Canada's official development assistance is delivered and administered.

Critics of Canada's aid spending noted that assistance was often sent to countries that have recently experienced strong economic growth and prosperity or have dubious records regarding human rights.

[9] In another example, Ivison noted that in 2004-2005 China received $57 million in ODA, amid concerns held by the international community about human rights abuses.

Secondly, it requires that ODA be promulgated in a manner consistent with Canadian values and foreign policy, sustainable development, and the promotion of democracy and human rights.

Due to the legislated focus on long-term poverty reduction, ODA cannot be redirected towards international military efforts or short-term disaster relief (areas of policy that the Canadian government must fund separately) and is subject to judicial review and oversight by the Minister.

I believe the debates initiated by Bill C-293 were so important that they will inform the nature of any future essential international development policy and legislation in this country.

The Ministers would publish the results of any specific investigation, and submit annual reports of activities carried out under the Act to the House of Commons and the Senate for review.

[17] Said McKay: "NGOs and government officials who have expressed concerns about the practices of some mining, oil, and gas operations in developing countries will be encouraged by Bill C-300.

John McKay sometimes characterizes the bill as a modest law that would merely ensure that the Canadian government does not directly support extractive industry companies that do not adhere to CSR standards.

[19] However, it appears that the law would oblige or empower (oblige in response to a complaint, empower if they believe warranted) the Ministers to investigate and report on any Canadian mining or oil company regardless of whether it was currently receiving support – so the potential sanction of government condemnation would apply to any extractive industry company, if one of the Ministers decides it is not acting consistently with the CSR guidelines.

John McKay has used Talisman Energy divesting of its share of a venture in Sudan as an example of how it would be feasible for Canadian companies to comply with the bill.

This approach contrasts to the National Roundtables on CSR 2007 Advisory Group's recommendations,[21] and the current government initiatives, that are aimed at supporting and enforcing improved performance in the developing world.

Export Development Canada (EDC) would be required to withdraw even existing financing from a company that has been found in a Ministerial investigation to have activities inconsistent with the guidelines to be established under Bill C-300.

Representatives of the mining industry also note that key stakeholders were not consulted in the development of the bill, and is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the recommendations of the National Roundtable on CSR.

[24] As is evidenced through public statements and media appearances, Bill C-300's critics represent a wide array of extractive industry and business interests.

Professor Richard Janda of the McGill University Faculty of Law produced a report entitled, Bill C-300: Sound and Measured Reinforcement for CSR.

However, John McKay has stated that Canadian companies already have a competitive advantage in some developing countries because they are held to higher standards of practice and more likely to fulfill licensing conditions.

An important difference between the basis of Professor Janda's conclusions and the concerns of industry is the presumption of how easy, or not, it will be for the Minister receiving a complaint to determine if it is "frivolous or vexatious".

A second important difference in the view of the Janda report and submissions from industry and other members of the legal community is the presumption of how complaints will be investigated.

Professor Janda refers to the legality in Canada for the Canadian government to hear evidence from "witnesses abroad", and gives examples of foreign fact-finding related to assistance in natural disasters to coordinate relief efforts.

The Janda report also finds Bill C-300 is consistent with the National Roundtables Advisory Group's recommendations, with an even more modest set of proposals.

Supporters of C-300 state that the Bill is a better representation of the Ombudsman than the recently created Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor, because C-300 can force investigations and impose sanctions.

[35] The submissions critical of C-300 do not argue against this principle, and have noted that the existing CSR Commitment of EDC,[36] and CPP Policies and Reports on Responsible Investing[37] currently provide at least a measure of such transparency and accountability.

According to McKay, "the Sunshine Bill" was modelled on the United States’ Cardin-Lugar amendment (2016) to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act that required oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments or potentially be de-listed from U.S. stock exchanges.

Such corruption, which enriches the politically connected but deprives regular people of their country’s mineral wealth, is known as the ‘resource curse.’"[39] Said McKay in the House of Commons on May 24, 2013: "This is serious stuff.

[41] The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act requires, oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign entities.

As a result of the report, the Government of Canada began to explore legislation to stop child and forced labour in supply chains.

If passed, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness through the Canadian Border Services Agency could impose an import ban on goods or materials partially or fully produced by forced labour.