Bill C-17 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act regarding therapeutic products in order to improve safety by introducing measures to, among other things,
(a) strengthen safety oversight of therapeutic products throughout their life cycle;
(b) improve reporting by certain health care institutions of serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents that involve therapeutic products; and
(c) promote greater confidence in the oversight of therapeutic products by increasing transparency.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to, so we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, Drug-Free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

Vanessa's Law

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, will help identify potentially dangerous drugs and ensure the quick recall of unsafe drugs. It contains tough new patient safety measures, and the health committee is currently working very well on amendments that will make this bill even stronger.

I have been pleased to see the co-operation of all parties at committee to get its legislative study of Vanessa's law done today, and we hope to see it reported back to the House as soon as possible. If this spirit of co-operation continues, it is within our power to see Bill C-17 pass in this House before the summer.

Our discussions today have been fruitful, and I hope to see this goodwill continue to ensure that this important patient safety legislation becomes law as soon as possible. I am willing to work. Our committee is willing to work. Let us get the job done.

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2014, by the House leader of the official opposition regarding the validity of a notice of time allocation with respect to Bill C-17, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

I would like to thank the House leader of the official opposition for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Oxford for their contributions.

The House leader of the official opposition argued that the consultation required pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) had never taken place and therefore the Chair should rescind the notice for time allocation for Bill C-17. Furthermore, it was his contention that there was no need for the government to resort to time allocation at all since the bill had been on the order paper for six months, yet had received virtually no debate to date.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons confirmed that although the contents of confidential House leaders’ meetings could not be revealed, agreements had been proposed to the House leader of the official opposition and his staff. Notice of time allocation was then given only once it was evident that no agreement could be reached.

Through this point of order, the Chair is being asked to stand in judgment of two things, the first being whether or not there were consultations such that the conditions of Standing Order 78(3) were satisfied. The second is whether the time that the House had debated Bill C-17 was sufficient enough to warrant the use of time allocation.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on pages 669 to 670, states that:

The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations which are to be held by the Minister and representatives of the other parties, and has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.

As recently as March 6, 2014, the Deputy Speaker addressed this very issue when, on page 3598 of Debates, he reminded the House that:

The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it.

Therefore, it remains a steadfast practice that it is not the role of the Speaker to determine whether consultations have taken place or not.

With respect to the amount of debate a bill must receive before notice of a time allocation motion can be given, the Chair is being asked to render a decision on a matter over which there are no explicit procedural rules or practices, and thus, over which it has no authority. Rather, it is the House that retains that authority and therefore must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.

Accordingly, notice of time allocation for Bill C-17 was valid when it was given. I thank all members for their attention.

Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

, seconded by the member for Vancouver East, moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who supported my bill. We can accomplish a lot when we work together in a non-partisan way.

I would particularly like to thank the Minister of Health, who supported this bill. She shared her opinions and was extraordinarily understanding. I also want to thank her team.

I have to thank, in particular, the member for Honoré-Mercier, because, in the spirit of non-partisanship, she gave up her slot today, June 11, so that this bill, which has received such widespread support from all corners of the House, could proceed through report stage, third reading, and make its way to the Senate. I am very grateful that Senator Janis Johnson is prepared to take it forward so that we can get this help to the people who need it most.

All members in this place are now much more familiar than they were with the threat of Lyme disease. This bill will not solve all our problems, but it will take us a long way forward. So many members spoke passionately in this place about the importance of the bill. I want to particularly thank members on all sides of the House. The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's gave a passionate speech about the difficulties of diagnosis and what he sees happening in Nova Scotia. My friend, the hon. member for Victoria, talked about our friend who lives in his riding but works with me, Chris Powell and her daughter Nicole Bottles, who testified in committee.

The hon. member for St. Paul's gave me time in committee so I could ask questions, which I otherwise could not have done. There have been so many acts of kindness. It is unusual for a private member's bill to have been seconded initially by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North with the Green Party, seconded at the next stage by the hon. member for Oakville, a Conservative, who has himself stood on an important issue in Bill C-17, which I hope we can also pass expeditiously, Vanessa's law. Today I am honoured that the health critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver East, would be my seconder.

I also want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for her help. I know I will forget people as I keep thanking everyone. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie offered early help and support. Everybody on all sides of the House, including the health critic for the Liberal Party, have been unstinting in their willingness to help the bill pass, to get through amendments and clause by clause in committee. This bill is now called a federal framework on Lyme disease. It has the support, as I have said, of Health Canada.

I will share with the House things that I did not know when I first put this bill forward at first reading almost two years ago exactly. The Public Health Agency of the Government of Canada testified before the health committee that this is one of the fastest-growing infectious diseases in Canada. The evidence from the federal Public Health Agency is that it thinks by the year 2020 Canada could be experiencing 10,000 new cases of Lyme disease every year.

Every step we take in 2014 to put in place national approaches that work federally, provincially, and territorially for better education and better prevention so that people can avoid getting Lyme disease in the first place by knowing what to look for, by avoiding ticks, moving to better diagnoses, working with the doctors across this country, is crucial. The support of the Canadian Medical Association for this bill, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation has been absolutely essential. All of these expert bodies recognize that this is a very complicated disease, very difficult to diagnose, and that we should no longer stand for any one of our friends, neighbours, or relatives to have to go to the United States for expensive treatment.

We do not want to hear any more stories from our own constituents who had to sell their homes to be able to afford the treatment that we can provide here in Canada through a federal framework on Lyme disease. Ultimately, we need much better research. I have mentioned a couple of times how indebted I am to the hon. Minister of Health. Funds have been put in place by Health Canada without being tied to this bill, because, of course, a private member's bill cannot put forward funds.

I will close now with the most deep and heartfelt thanks to all in this place tonight and every day. God bless them.

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP continues to believe that its magical thinking will pan out in a way that supports Canadians.

That particular member, regardless of whether it is a discretionary or a statutory item, will vote in opposition, because the NDP ultimately opposes this government's agenda of low-tax policies that will help us grow our economy, create more jobs, and create long-term prosperity.

I understand that the member has certain ideas about the Senate and about whether it should be funded, but this government stands clear. We want to see a strong parliamentary agenda. We want to see things like Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, which I mentioned, go forward, because they are in Canadians' greatest interests.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, normally I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in a debate, but not today. Today, in this case, I will be rising to oppose a motion denying the allocation of resources for the Senate. In other words, I will not be supporting the motion that opposes funding for the Senate.

I expect that was the point by the member opposite in creating this motion, because the member knows the role of the Senate in our Constitution. Once a bill leaves this place, it must pass through the other place before it ultimately can receive royal assent. In essence, the member opposite is suggesting to shut down the ability to pass laws, to amend laws and to change legislation, because without the Senate, the way our Constitution is structured, that would be the final result.

I suppose that a do nothing approach is favourable to the NDP. After all, if nothing were to change, the New Democratic Party would not have to oppose everything. I have problems with that, and I would like to provide an example for the chamber as to why that is.

Recently, in this place, we debated Bill C-17, otherwise known as Vanessa's law, a long overdue, much needed bill that would better protect Canadians from dangerous drugs by ensuring that our democratically elected Minister of Health and Health Canada could have the power to recall dangerous drugs and not just the huge pharmaceutical corporations, as is the current case.

One of my weekly member of Parliament reports was focused on Vanessa's law. I am pleased to share with the House that the response from my constituents was overwhelmingly in support of the bill. Even my local NDP and Liberal friends were strongly supportive of the bill. As we know, the NDP in the House supported Vanessa's law as well, even if they filibustered the debate in debating how they agreed with it. I suspect when the New Democrats heard from their constituents back home, they heard much the same message that I heard. That is likely why they did an about-face in sending that bill forward late last week.

Imagine if bills like Vanessa's law could not ultimately become law because they could not pass through the other place. This is the kind of nonsense the NDP is proposing in this motion today.

I am not naive to the fact that there are many Canadians who are strongly opposed to the Senate. The problem is that the NDP likes to pretend that it has a magic wand and can simply wish the Senate away. Our own Supreme Court has confirmed that simply is not the case. The NDP knows this and yet it continues to play a political game that we can simply make the Senate disappear when, in fact, we cannot.

If the NDP truly wants a constitutional debate on the Senate, it should simply say so. Let us be clear that there are many non-partisan support staff that make that Senate run, no different than the assistance we here receive and benefit from in this place. The NDP members, with this motion, in effect, is suggesting that none of them get paid, or perhaps they are suggesting that they possibly work for free. Is the member for Winnipeg Centre also proposing to hand out pink slips to all the support staff in the Senate?

If there were lawsuits from de-funding the Senate, would the member for Winnipeg Centre ask his friends in the union movement to cover the costs of those lawsuits, as he did his own? I suspect not. This is the same NDP that has no problem using tax dollars in NDP satellite offices, the same NDP that is happy to use taxpayer-funded staff in these satellite offices, but apparently does not think there should be taxpayer-funded staff in the Senate. This just does not reconcile.

The Canadian Senate, rightly or wrongly, was conceived as an institution to provide sober second thought in legislative scrutiny. It was also conceived as an institution to provide regional representation, as evidenced by the regional divisions of the Senate.

Disagreement with the Senate is nothing new to Canadians and, I would suggest, has been occurring since July 1, 1867, and has continued ever since.

As I am sure all members are well aware, a plethora of Senate reform proposals have been put forward over a number of decades. In most cases, proposals have called for an injection of democratic legitimacy into the appointment process, as well as the changes to the distribution of senators among the provinces, and also changes to the power of the Senate itself.

One of these reform initiatives was the triple-E Senate proposal that came out of Alberta during the 1980s. Triple-E stands for elected, equal, and effective. This should not be confused with the Liberal leader's vision of a triple-E Senate, which is a Senate of the elites, by the elites, and for the elites.

The original triple-E proposal laid the basis for many of the proposals that ensued in the years that followed and found its way into constitutional discussions that took place during the 1980s and 1990s, the most notable being the Meech Lake constitutional accord and the Charlottetown constitutional accord.

The Charlottetown accord would have resulted in a fundamentally changed Senate. The Senate would have been elected with an equal number of senators per province, with some limitations on the power of the Senate to avoid deadlock. The rejection of the Charlottetown accord in the 1992 referendum significantly reduced the prospects for fundamental constitutional reform for many years, and serious discussion of the Senate largely disappeared from the national debate.

As members will know, not long after the 2006 election, when our government first introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate, the bill would have limited senators' tenure to a renewable term of eight years. Bill S-4 gathered a great deal of support and was endorsed by the Senate Special Committee on Senate Reform, as well as by a number of constitutional experts.

Let us not forget that it was the opposition parties that united in their refusal to support meaningful Senate reform, as was proposed in Bill S-4. This led to the introduction of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, in 2011. Bill C-7 would have implemented a nine year, non-renewable term for senators, as well as a voluntary framework for provinces to implement Senate appointment consultation processes of their own. However, that was not to be, and now we must all live with and respect the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter.

The court said that Senate abolition would require the support of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of each province. In doing so, it has given the Senate the highest level of protection that can be achieved under our amending procedures. I would point out for the member for Winnipeg Centre that his proposal to effectively abolish the Senate by withdrawing its funding would not conform to the court's decision in its Senate reform reference.

I would also like to point out that it is unlikely that all of the provinces agree with the position of the member for Winnipeg Centre. I would further submit that one thing most of the provinces do appear to agree on is that the Senate is not the top priority of provincial concern.

I would like to make this clear. I am not looking to defend the institution that we call the other place. That is not the role of members of the House. However, we now have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on Senate reform and the release of the court's opinion this spring. It remains to be seen what the ultimate impact of the court's opinion will be on the future for reform.

However, the subject of this potential constitutional debate is not one that any member of this place should take lightly. The reality is that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to do an end run around with his motion.

I understand the NDP's frustration, and at times I am certain we all wish we had a magic wand to make our challenges magically go away. However, what the member for Winnipeg Centre has proposed, as we know, is not how this issue will be resolved.

Before I close, I would like to share a few personal thoughts on this issue. Since I have come to this place, I have worked with senators. I have worked with senators on the Senate-House of Commons Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I worked with the Senate on the passage of my private member's bill on the interprovincial movement of wine. This work seldom is covered by the media. However, I can state first-hand that it is important work and that the Senate takes a different perspective on these issues. I mention this because we all know that there are a handful of members from the other place who have become household names for a variety of different but not flattering reasons. However, there are also many good people who do good work on behalf of Canadians in the other place.

Many of us may not like the historic structure of the other place and the role it plays in our governance. However, dislike of an institution we disagree with does not alleviate our constitutional obligations to work with that institution. Regardless of what the NDP thinks, the Senate is part of the process of how we pass laws.

I need not remind the NDP that we are legislators. To deny or otherwise disable part of the very process involved with changing legislation would in effect compromise the work we do on behalf of Canadians. If the NDP seeks to disable our ability to pass, amend, or change laws as legislators, then perhaps it is time it ceased to be the opposition. I frequently hear the NDP members propose private member's bills, suggest amendments, and even propose to change laws, should they ever form the government. None of that can happen without bills passing through the Senate. It is in our constitution.

Either the New Democratic Party is kidding Canadians, or perhaps it is just kidding itself. Either way, like the Senate or not, those who came long before us did a very good job of ensuring that the other place is very much part of how we pass bills into law. To undermine this process undermines the work we do as legislators, and I cannot and will not support this motion presented by the NDP tonight. I certainly will be happy to vote in favour of the estimates put forward.

I support the motion put forward by the government so that it can have supply, but I stand opposed to the notion by the NDP.

I would like to thank all members of the House for taking the time to hear my comments this evening. I appreciate and look forward to their questions.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Health

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I was pleased to take part in the beginning of the health committee study of Bill C-17, Vanessa's law.

I was pleased that we could get the study under way and would like to thank the NDP members for finally conceding to allow the bill to be referred for study after their initial attempts to slow its progress through this House.

To ensure that the official opposition remains mindful of the importance of this legislation, I would ask the Minister of Health to please inform the House, once again, about the important measures that it contains to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in relation to the point of order raised by the hon. House leader of the official opposition made on Friday afternoon.

I was quite prepared to see the House advance Bill C-17. I was prepared to leave it at that and take the victory for what it was and move on. However, since the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster confirmed at that time that he wished to continue with his point of order, I do want to supplement my hon. friend's intervention on it.

First, I did want to make the point that the NDP House leader told the House that the hon. member for Oakville made comments in the House “with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement”. I appreciate my counterpart's sense that my powers are all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, I can assure the House that in this case my hon. friend from Oakville proceeded entirely on his own initiative in the comments on Bill C-17 that he made, as every MP has the right to do.

That being said, I do wish to congratulate the hon. member for Oakville for his very successful efforts. I am proud of him as a colleague for having taken the initiative, even if I cannot share in any credit or blame for his having done so. His persistence last week in seeing the bill through to committee clearly paid off, given that the NDP did change its tune late on Friday afternoon on this matter.

Turning to the substance of his point of order, the opposition House leader claims that the time allocation notice, which I gave on Thursday evening in relation to Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, should be rescinded because he alleges there were no consultations on the bill.

As the deputy government whip said on Friday, our party does not reveal the content of the discussions of the House leaders' meetings.

It is common knowledge around here that the recognized parties' House leaders and whips and their deputies and staff gather every Tuesday afternoon to discuss upcoming parliamentary business, along with the Clerk or her representative in attendance. Some weeks, such as last week, the House leaders will even gather for a second meeting. That is on top of the innumerable exchanges that take place by email, informal meetings, and phone conversations among these various actors.

Last week's House leaders' meeting would have been held on the heels of the NDP's Tuesday filibuster of Bill C-17, when it has been the expectation and hope of all other parties that the second reading debate would wind up that morning.

Astute observers of the business of the House would conclude that it was not in isolation that I gave time allocation notices on Thursday evening for Bills C-17 and C-27. Indeed, I only gave those notices once it had become obvious that no agreement for a time allocation motion under Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2), let alone any other firm agreement, could be reached among the required parties with respect to those two bills.

I can absolutely assure the Speaker and the entire House that both myself and my staff did put proposals on Bill C-17 to the NDP House leader and his staff, both verbally and in writing, last week. I have no difficulty whatsoever in assuring the Speaker that the requirement for consultations contemplated in the standing orders was fulfilled.

As to what that requirement is, I would refer the House leader of the official opposition to a ruling of the Deputy Speaker on March 6, 2014, at page 3598 of the Debates, in response to a point of order raised by the previous NDP House leader, where he opened by making reference to page 667 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition:

This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:The notice in question is to state that the agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion...The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)...That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.

In this case, while I might welcome such an investigations and Canadians, I can assure the House, would be most interested in its findings and I would be most satisfied for them to receive those, I do also understand the policy rationale for not conducting them. That is a policy rationale of encouraging full-ranging negotiations without a concern for potential investigations like that.

Finally, I would like to note the significance of the point of order raised by the opposition House leader. He has, however, inadvertently, given Canadians an insight into how the NDP approaches the business of managing the progress of legislation in the House of Commons.

The NDP members make a great deal of fuss every time the government makes use of time allocation to ensure MPs can get to vote on a bill. The NDP members keep track of how often it happens and make a big deal about that statistic. I have been heard to remark myself that often they seem to enjoy compelling us to run up that statistic.

Why does that happen? The NDP has now finally told Canadians why it happens. In raising this point of order it has asked that a notice of time allocation be rescinded or withdrawn on the basis that it is not necessary. The NDP is prepared to allow the bill to advance. This is the very first time the NDP has done that, the very first time it has told the House that it is prepared to advance a bill and thus that a time allocation motion need not be moved. Never before, since this Parliament began, some three years ago, has it taken this step. Never on any of those many occasions when New Democrats stood up to denounce the use of the scheduling device of time allocation have they pre-empted that step with a statement that they are willing to advance a bill. This, however unintended by the NDP, has given Canadians a valuable insight into the approach of the NDP and why, as a result, the government makes use of the standing orders provisions to bring some certainty to the scheduling of debates and votes.

I hope, however, that this marks the beginning of a new approach by the NDP and not merely an unusual exception to the rule, brought on by the very effective comments of the hon. member for Oakville on the matter of Bill C-17.

I hope that we will see many more occasions where the NDP makes it clear that it is prepared to see a bill advance and, as such, resorting to Standing Order 73 is not required. There are several such notices on the order paper. I invite the NDP to advise the House which of those bills it is prepared to see advanced. Such a gesture would be welcome, and I am prepared to assure the House leader of the opposition it will be received in a non-partisan and co-operative manner.

Either way, I wish to thank the opposition House leader for having done a service in revealing to Canadians how it is that the NDP approaches debate in the House. This revelation will, I am sure, help to inform the views of all those who follow the work we do.

Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law)

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, following the comments of the opposition House leader, I hope that we can get unanimous consent for the following:

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Bill C–17. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 27—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—Minister of Health

Time Allocation for Vanessa's Law

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of order concerning the time allocation motion that the House received yesterday in relation to Bill C-17.

As you know, yesterday the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stood and announced his intention to move a time allocation motion for Bill C-17. There has not been much debate about the bill in the House because all of the parties support it. Even more important is the fact that all of the parties are prepared to send the bill to committee.

As members also know, the short title for the bill is “Vanessa's Law”, in honour of the tragic death of Vanessa Young, who was the daughter of the member for Oakville. However, this week, I am very sad to say, that member levelled unfounded and partisan comments against the opposition for so-called delaying the bill. Given the prominence of the attacks from the government in question period and the members' statements lineup, it is clear he was doing this with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement.

The problem is that the only reason the bill was not been sent to committee months ago was that the government House leader did not consider it important enough to qualify for debate. He, of course, sets the agenda for what bills are called and he is responsible for asking other parties to help expedite legislation when he wants to.

At the beginning of December, the bill was tabled in the House. The sad truth is that in the nearly six months since this proposed law was tabled, there have been only 60 minutes of debate in March and then a couple of hours of debate this week. In fact, in the March discussion, we moved on to another bill before the third party even had an opportunity to speak.

Questions need to be asked about why the bill has not been brought forward to committee, and here is a good example. With almost an hour left in government orders, the government has asked to move forward to private members' legislation. It could have brought Bill C-17 forward for debate at this time.

The problem is that we have never been asked, not once at any of the meetings we have had with the government House leader. One cannot say that one does not have agreement if one has never asked the question.

The government House leader actually has my cellphone number, although it is telling to note that I do not have his. I have been meeting with him regularly, and we have told him very clearly that Bill C-17 can to go committee without time allocation. The reality is that he has not asked me because he seems to want to play political games rather than deal with the fact that we want some debate on the bill before it is sent to committee.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rescind that notice of time allocation given under Standing Order 78.3 because the government House leader simply has never asked us the question in the many opportunities he has had in the last few months.

We do not want to set a precedent around the use of time allocation, and the Conservatives have used it so abusively already. Sometimes they have asked us the question, but in this case, the question was never asked. The government seems to want to play political games with this bill rather than work with the opposition so we can improve upon it in committee and move it back into the house.

Bill C-17—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House leader of the official opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the member would have been right if he was not talking about speakers. He is wrong. Speakers actually show up in Hansard, so Canadians who are interested can go online, look at Hansard, and see how many members spoke.

The point I was going to make was that there were a number of speaking spots that Conservatives did not show up for. They did not even show up for their shifts. Most Canadians who do not show up for their shifts do not get paid. For the first two nights, a number of Conservative MPs did not even show up to speak for their constituents. Therefore, after two nights, we can see very clearly that New Democrats show up to work, they fight for their constituents, and they speak out for Canadians every night in the House of Commons, whether it is midnight or 9 p.m.

I still have some questions for my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

First, the government has just moved another time allocation motion. This is the 66th time. How sad. How many times in the coming days will the government use its majority to impose closure or time allocation?

Second, we debated Bill C-17 for a few hours this week. It was introduced in the House in December 2013, and the government refused to debate it for six months. When will the government hold another debate and a vote on that bill? Those are my two questions.