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.

Food and Drugs Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-368. I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing it forward for the House's consideration.

The reason I am very pleased is that the issue of natural health products has garnered a lot of attention in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have had a lot of constituents and local businesses approach me concerning this issue in particular. I am pleased to be able to stand here, as their elected representative, and let my constituents know that I will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I was also very pleased to be able to add my name as a joint seconder to the bill. To fulfill the wishes of my constituents, I will be voting to send it to committee for further study.

What are we talking about when we say “natural health products”? I have always thought it a weird thing that they are regulated under a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. They are not really a food, nor are they a drug. They occupy a special place for many people. We must face that humans have had relationships with natural health products dating back thousands of years. Many of these products have a very special place in human history, and a lot of cultures have very long relationships with them.

Today, in the modern world, natural health products often come in a variety of forms, such as tablets, capsules, tinctures, solutions, creams, ointments and drops. There is quite a large variety for people to pick and choose from. They are often made from plants, but they can also come from animals, from micro-organisms and from marine sources. They include vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines, probiotics and other products, such as amino acids and essential fatty acids. They are found in many everyday consumer products.

Let us come to the bill in question, Bill C-368. As shown in the summary, it would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and, therefore, are not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

Before we get into the substance, we need to take a little history lesson on how we arrived here. I want to say that both Conservatives and Liberals have run into trouble when trying to regulate natural health products. In fact, the previous government, under Harper, learned this lesson very quickly back in 2008 when it introduced Bill C-51. That was also an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Under Bill C-51, the term “therapeutic products” encompassed a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. In the end, because of an election, that bill was never adopted. However, I believe the Harper government at that time learned its lesson because of the uproar that came in response to Bill C-51, and it did not attempt to change Canada's regulations for natural health products again while in government.

What the Harper government did do, in 2014, was introduce Bill C-17 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It was also known as Vanessa's Law. This introduced a definition for the term “therapeutic product”, but what was different this time was that the definition was worded in such a way that it did not include natural health products, within the meaning of the natural health products regulations.

We then fast-forward to the present Liberal government and Bill C-47. That bill, in a clause buried deep within a budget implementation act, again amended the term “therapeutic product” to make sure that the exemption from the natural health products regulations was actually removed. This has caused much of the uproar we see today.

I want to point out, as I said in my intro, that natural health products have a long history of use in Canada as low-risk, affordable methods of promoting well-being. It is very important that I stand here today and say unequivocally that they must remain accessible to all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of a caucus, the NDP caucus, that has long supported an appropriate regulatory category for natural health products to certify their safety and efficacy based on sound evidence, as well as to ensure that they are widely available for those who use and value them.

It is unacceptable that the changes to the regulatory regime under the Food and Drugs Act was snuck into a budget omnibus bill, because it did not allow for proper study. I am glad to see that, because Bill C-368 is a stand-alone, quite simple and easy-to-read piece of legislation, from reading the room, it should have enough votes to send it to committee. We can then have the proper study; hear from Canadians and businesses that sell natural health products, the practitioners involved in this every day; and, finally, get the proper scrutiny that this issue so richly deserves.

I do not want to spend too much longer speaking to the bill, but I want to talk a bit about the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who took the time to write to my office, phone me personally and come into my office. In particular, I want to recognize a few of the local businesses. Essential Remedies, Benoit and Associates Health Education, some holistic health practitioners, the Community Farm Store, Botanical Bliss, a certified homeopathic practitioner, a naturopathic physician and Lynn's Vitamin Gallery all took the time in the summer of 2023 to come into my office. We had a great round table discussion. It lasted well over an hour. It was really enlightening for me, as their member of Parliament, to hear their views on this subject and learn a little more about why it is so important.

Yes, my immediate family definitely uses natural health products, and I know that many friends and relatives in my immediate vicinity also use them. However, to hear from professionals who work with clients every day about why this issue is so important was particularly enlightening for me. It is also important to note that 71% of Canadians, which is a very big number, have used natural health products, such as vitamins and minerals, herbal products and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, it is important that, when the NHP community speaks to their elected representatives, it represents a very clear majority of Canadians. Based on a proper cross-sampling of the correspondence that I, like many other members, have received, I know that they want their elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and give the bill full scrutiny.

Finally, I want to congratulate the NHP community and industry, which have been very actively engaged on this issue through their work. I really want to single out the local businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the constituents who live on Vancouver Island. I congratulate them for their advocacy, for stepping up to the plate and for engaging me as their elected representative, because it has worked. I am proud to say that, in this place, as their elected representative, I will be pleased to vote to send Bill C-368 to committee.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of thalidomide

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the support from the hon. member. I would agree with him that the real heroes are the incredibly strong advocates, the thalidomide survivors who have had the courage to speak out and to be visible. They have brought forward this incredible tragedy of what is happening 50 years after to full public light. For sure, the Globe and Mail article from last Saturday was pretty amazing.

We should also thank a public relations firm called Campbell Strategies, a former member of Parliament. People at that firm have been working truly pro bono with the Thalidomide Survivors Task Force for about a year and a half on this issue. We all recognize it is really hard to bring something forward and get that kind of national attention. When it happens and things come together, it is very powerful. That is what has happened. The very important role and ongoing work that Campbell Strategies has provided in supporting the thalidomide survivors with a communications strategy has helped them to bring this story forward.

The member mentioned Bill C-17. He also mentioned that in Europe clinical trials are fully disclosed. He is correct; that is the situation.

We debated Bill C-17 in the House and it was passed unanimously. In committee, the NDP brought forward probably 23 amendments, several of which were about full disclosure in clinical trials. Whether the trials are positive or negative, our belief is that we need to have full transparency and disclosure. This information is often used by researchers and it is often information that is used in other clinical trials. That kind of full and public disclosure is really important. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated. The bill itself is a very important step forward, but I would agree with him that we still have more work to do on this file.

Does the member believe it is critical to have public oversight of these kinds of issues in terms of drug safety? We never want to see a repeat of what happened with the women who took thalidomide, thinking it was a safe drug. This kind of oversight is very critical.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce.

I want to begin by saying that nobody who is not a thalidomide survivor or a relative or a friend of a survivor can begin to comprehend the pain and suffering the thalidomide tragedy caused. Nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering inflicted. It is a tragedy that made governments around the world fundamentally rethink how they protect their citizens' health and safety.

The government in Canada too learned from this tragedy. The tragic event from the 1960s reminds us why we need to take drug safety so seriously. Since that time, we have collectively resolved that Canadians deserve nothing less than one of the safest drug approval systems in the world.

As parliamentarians, we continue to strive to strengthen patient safety in this country. We continue to make changes to the drug safety system to enhance its rigour and reduce the risk that this kind of terrible event could occur again. That is why this House so recently united to support Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. It is too often that we experience terrible events like the impact of thalidomide from its use in the early 1960s and, more recently, the death of Vanessa Young to call us to action.

In the case of Vanessa's law, all parliamentarians recognized Health Canada's need for appropriate authorities to ensure that unsafe products are identified and dealt with quickly. We recognized how important it is for regulators to be given the tools they need to protect Canadians from unsafe drugs.

In the wake of the thalidomide tragedy, laws were enacted to require manufacturers to file more detailed submissions with Health Canada, the federal regulator, to receive authorization before a new drug could be marketed. These submissions contain substantial information and data about the drug's safety, effectiveness, and quality, as well as warnings and precautions about side effects.

Products with an identified risk, such as the potential to cause birth defects, or products that are used in vulnerable populations, such as children or pregnant women, are treated as high-risk products and are subject to increased scrutiny, monitoring, and risk mitigation.

These were critical changes to the drug safety system; however, it became apparent that addressing safety concerns at the pre-market stage was not enough. Health Canada needed the tools to take appropriate action if a serious risk was identified after a drug was on the market. That is why all parties in this House and in the other place endorsed Vanessa's law, which received royal assent on November 6 of this year.

This legislation will protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicine by enabling the Minister of Health to require health care institutions to report serious adverse drug reactions and to report incidents related to medical devices, to recall unsafe products, to apply to the courts to impose tough new penalties for unsafe products, to provide the courts with discretion to impose even stronger fines if violations were caused intentionally, to compel drug companies to revise labels to clearly reflect health risk information, and, finally, to compel drug companies to do further testing on a product, including when issues were identified with certain at-risk populations.

Vanessa's law has also introduced new transparency measures that when in force will require Health Canada to make both positive and negative regulatory decisions publicly available, as well as the reasons for those decisions. These reasons will include a clear statement of benefits a drug may confer, the harmful side effects that some patients may experience, and areas where there are gaps in knowledge.

Transparency regulations will enhance the current transparency requirements in Bill C-17 by placing an obligation on drug companies to disclose more clinical trial information publicly.

Canadians will also be consulted during the regulatory development process about the types of information that could be made available.

As an example, clinical databases show what clinical trials are taking place in Canada for drugs that treat a particular disease or condition. They also provide information about a point person who can provide information for that particular clinical trial. Going forward, a clinical trial registry could indicate whether a trial has been conducted or if it has been terminated prematurely. At the conclusion of a trial, a registry could provide a summary of the results.

The information could be important to patients and health care providers in making treatment decisions. It could be helpful to academic researchers in doing further assessments relating to patient safety. It could stimulate thinking about new areas for research.

In developing Vanessa's law, the government consulted broadly with patients and experts about how to best update Canada's drug safety laws. The new measures substantially strengthen the safety and oversight of therapeutic products throughout their life cycle. They improve Health Canada's ability to collect post-market safety information and ensure strong and active oversight once a drug is on the market. Equally important, they improve the department's ability to communicate important safety information to Canadians and their health care providers.

I will continue my remarks after question period.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thalidomide is a word that resonates in Canadian cultural history. It is one of those words that one only has to hear, say, or read to evoke immediate and strong feelings. It has gone down in our collective national memory as a mark of human suffering. It is a sad symbol of scientific and governmental failure.

Canadians have a profound faith in the capacity of modern science to improve their quality of life, and this faith is justified. Scientists and researchers keep developing new effective medicines to treat and heal disease. Canadians expect their governments to protect them from unsafe drugs, and this is an expectation that has largely been fulfilled. Over the decades, Canada has enjoyed one of the best drug safety systems in the world.

However, science and governments can fail. Thalidomide is one of those failures. From both sides of the House today, we have heard terrible stories of the shattering human toll of the catastrophic failure that was thalidomide. We have also been reminded that while thalidomide is an awful lesson of history for the survivors, it is very much their present and their future.

As a government, we can help the victims of this tragedy, and I am proud today to stand in support of this motion. I am also pleased to hear that the Minister of Health will be meeting with the victims and is actively reviewing the proposal put forward by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada.

Today I want to talk about another aspect of this tragic failure, and the solution so that it does not happen again: transparency and openness. More specifically, I want to talk about the significant steps that the Minister of Health has taken to further enhance the culture of transparency at Health Canada.

The victims of thalidomide never had a chance. Their mothers never had any warning and never saw it coming. Although there was a heated debate at the time within international scientific and regulatory communities about the safety of thalidomide, this concern was never shared with the public. As a result, expectant mothers suffering from morning sickness, and their doctors, were denied the chance to make an informed choice about whether to use thalidomide.

By approving the drug, Canadian regulators took what they viewed at that time as being a justified risk on behalf of potential victims without telling them about it. Many things have changed since thalidomide, but one thing that has not and likely never will is the fact that all drugs come with risks and benefits. The choice that still faces any drug regulator is the determination, based on sound science, of whether the benefits of taking a given drug outweigh the potential health risks to patients.

What has become unacceptable to Canadians, especially post-thalidomide, is for our regulators to restrict the public availability of information about drug risks. It is unacceptable to convey the false impression that such topics are best left to qualified experts in government, industry, and the health professions.

Mr. Speaker, you and I, and most Canadians, may not be scientists, but we have a right to know all that we can about the drugs we are taking, the good and the bad. At the end of the day, it is our lives, our health, and it should be a choice. That means we deserve an informed choice based on best information available to us at the time.

In the years since thalidomide, Health Canada has taken an expectation of transparency to heart. Today the department makes more drug safety information available to Canadians than ever before, so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families. Every year, the department issues hundreds of health product risk communications, by way of public warnings, public advisories, information updates, and foreign product alerts.

This includes product recalls, as well as changes to drug labels that are required to inform Canadians about any new and emerging risks of using a particular drug. These communications are widely disseminated to media and health professionals. Health Canada also requires that drug makers publicly communicate any new drug product risks.

The department now posts the drug product database on the Internet, where Canadians can find the list of risks and benefits of any approved drug or publicly available product. It has also created the Canada vigilance adverse reaction online database. Here, Canadians can find out about adverse reactions that have been reported to the department.

Increasing the availability of information to Canadians is a fundamental pillar of the Minister of Health's openness and transparency framework at Health Canada.

When our government took office, it was clear that the level of transparency at Health Canada had improved significantly from the days of thalidomide, but we felt it could do more and do it better. We particularly felt that information that Health Canada shares with the public needed to be easier to understand and more accessible.

We directed the launch of the recalls and safety alerts database. It provides Canadians with one-stop access to the latest risks information on all food and consumer products, including health products. The framework and action plan shows Canadians the concrete and incremental steps that we are taking to improve their access to timely, useful, and relevant health and safety information.Each year, Health Canada will issue a report on how it has performed against those commitments. This too will be posted online, on Health Canada's transparency page.

Each year, Health Canada performs numerous reviews of the safety of specific approved drugs. These are done when the department receives scientific evidence that a new risk is emerging and needs to be assessed, to see if the approved uses of a drug need to be changed to help protect patients. Sometimes during these reviews, a risk is confirmed and requires additional safety action by the regulator, but this is not often the case.

Before the announcement on the framework, the finding of these studies was typically made available only by way of access to information requests. Under the framework, a commitment was made to post public summaries of drug safety reviews proactively. This has made Canada a world leader in communicating this kind of drug safety information.

This House has heard a good deal today about Bill C-17, known as Vanessa's law. Its passage is a quantum leap forward for drug safety in Canada.

We all know that this bill was inspired by another tragedy, the death of the daughter of our colleague, the member for Oakville. She died while using medication that she did not know was unsafe. I am inspired by the hon. member's example and honoured that he is in our caucus. I am proud that our government has delivered a concrete legislative response to the suffering of his family and other families like his.

To send a message that a government is serious about becoming more transparent and putting the health and safety of Canadians first, there were amendments introduced to Bill C-17 that added transparency provisions. The transparency measures introduced in Vanessa's law will also place an obligation on therapeutic product authorization holders to ensure that information concerning any clinical trials is made public.

I want to close by acknowledging that none of these measures alleviate the current suffering of thalidomide victims. It is only to highlight how our government has taken to heart the lessons that thalidomide has taught about the importance of transparency and openness about drug safety to Canadians.

I look forward to hearing how the Minister of Health is engaging the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada and how we might support the victims in their plight.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West has made his life in public safety, and this falls into that category. This is all about public safety.

I want to touch on Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, which was raised by my colleague. It is important to recognize what this legislation will do. It is a step forward for patient safety and for public safety. Bill C-17 will bring in mandatory recall powers, so that we will not have to negotiate with big pharma companies; mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions; tough new fines and jail time for companies that put Canadians at risk; and transparency for drug approvals and clinical trials. These are all critically important steps forward.

Obviously the tragic events in the 1960s remind us of why we need to take drug safety seriously. Let us be clear. Nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering inflicted on these individuals. That is why it is so important that we get it right, so this never happens again. That is why it is important that we use every power and tool within government's regulatory powers to make sure we have the proper framework in place to protect patients.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Oshawa on his very thoughtful remarks. We are certainly fortunate to have a parliamentary secretary who is so engaged on the topic.

It is impossible to stand today to speak about the thalidomide tragedy and not be moved. It is a story of an unspeakable tragedy of distraught parents, and children born with challenges that most of us cannot begin to comprehend. This is a tragic event from the 1960s that reminds us of why we need to take drug safety so seriously.

Nothing could ever undo the pain and suffering that was inflicted. It is a story that changed the way we regulate drugs in Canada. It opened our eyes to the fact that while drugs can bring many benefits, by curing diseases, reducing symptoms, and prolonging lives, they can also carry tremendous risks. It also serves as a constant reminder that we as parliamentarians must do all that we can to strengthen patient safety in Canada. That is why I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Health will be meeting with thalidomide victims and working co-operatively with them to determine what government can do to support them.

Canada now has one of the safest drug systems in the world, and our government recently strengthened that even further, giving royal assent to Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. Protecting patients is a shared responsibility, one that also rests with fellow legislators in the provinces and with provincial health departments, individual health care professionals and administrators, the colleges that regulate medical practice and other professional organizations, key partners like the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, and last, of course, the manufacturers of drugs.

The thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s, like no other event before or since, has impressed upon us what a truly enormous responsibility that is. While the quest for new cures is vital, it is equally important that we do everything in our power to ensure that drugs that reach the market do not cause harms that outweigh their benefits. That is why all parties in the House and in the other place united to unanimously support Vanessa's law, and why so many stakeholders and individuals endorsed that legislation.

Although many steps have been taken previously to strengthen Canada's drug safety system, we all recognize that the Minister of Health and Health Canada did not have adequate powers to protect patients from drugs that were found to be unsafe once they were on the market We, as legislators, acted decisively to provide the new tools to address this gap.

I would like to take some time today to focus on how Vanessa's law will enhance patient safety, how it will reduce the risk of tragic events like those associated with thalidomide, and how it will help Canadians to make informed decisions about the drugs they are taking.

Vanessa's law will ensure that knowledge about approved drugs and medical devices continues to be gathered and shared with the public once products enter the market. This is important because clinical trials can only tell us about how a drug will affect a particular population, the population it was tested on. They do not tell us how the drug will affect everyone who might take it once it is on the market.

When a company submits an application for market authorization to Health Canada, reviewers analyze the results of all tests and studies that are submitted. If the product is safe, effective, and of high quality, the department will give the company a licence to market a drug in Canada for a particular use. However, once products reach the market, Health Canada's ability to gather knowledge about them has traditionally been limited, and its ability to take action when problems arise has also been limited. That is why there are new provisions in Vanessa's law that represent a game changer.

Let me take a moment to describe some of them and why Vanessa's law is so crucial. One important new provision is that Vanessa's law will give the Minister of Health the ability to set the terms and conditions on an authorization and to make those terms and conditions publicly available. What this means is that, as part of the authorization, Health Canada will be able to ask a pharmaceutical company to continue to gather information in the real world, after the product reaches the market, and to make the results of the information gathering public so that Canadians and their health care providers have easy access to them.

For example, Health Canada may require the company to gather information about the impacts of a drug on patients with multiple medical conditions. Health Canada could require a company to monitor and assess the effects of drugs on patients with impaired kidney function. This may or may not have been studied in the initial clinical trial, and the approved label would indicate that.

However, this information may prove to be important as we gather real-world experience and see some patients with impaired kidney function and how the drug affects them. It may become apparent that there is no difference in the benefits and harms experienced by patients with impaired kidney function.

However, should it become clear that there may be a cause for concern, Health Canada will be able to compel the manufacturer to conduct active safety surveillance or conduct a new study specifically to address the issue. The information about what activities the manufacturers are being compelled to undertake will be made public. It will be a transparent system so that prescribers and patients will know what actions are being taken. Vanessa's law also provides the Minister of Health with the power to compel a label change for a drug and to make that information publicly available to Canadians. In the past, most companies have agreed on a voluntary basis to undertake a label change. Sometimes, however, protracted negotiations have been required, and sometimes, those negotiations were not successful. The new powers provided by Vanessa's law have changed that, so if adults or children are taking a drug, they will be able to access this new information. This will allow us, as Canadians, to make informed decisions in consultation with our health care providers.

However, not all new information comes from tests, studies, or the ongoing proactive monitoring of a drug. Sometimes, adverse events are completely unexpected and only identified through a rigorous adverse drug reaction reporting system. This reflects the reality I mentioned before, that patient safety is a shared responsibility. That is why Vanessa's law included mandatory reporting of serious adverse drug reactions and medical device incidents by health care institutions. Simply put, serious adverse drug reaction reports from manufacturers, health care institutions, health care professionals, and the public often provide the first clue about an emerging drug safety issue.

To date, adverse drug reactions have been under-reported in Canada. It has only been mandatory for companies to report adverse drug reactions related to their products. It was recognized that it is critical that we increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions so that Health Canada could take quick action when a problem is detected and share the knowledge rapidly with health care professionals and, most importantly, the public, in order to prevent further harm.

Sometimes, it may be necessary to remove a drug or particular batch of the drug from the market. Other times, it may be appropriate to change the label of a drug so that health care practitioners are aware of the new information when they make their prescribing decisions. In other situations, it may be most appropriate to require the company to conduct some active monitoring to gather further information.

I mentioned earlier the important work done by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute works with governments, health organizations, leaders, and health care providers to inspire improvements in patient safety and quality care. It acts as an advocate and catalyst for improvements in patient safety, and it invests in and brokers policy and system changes to protect the health of Canadian patients. As Health Canada works to roll out the new authorities provided in Vanessa's law, either immediately or through developing regulations, these organizations will be able to provide advice.

Nothing can undo the pain and suffering endured by the thalidomide survivors and their families, and it is truly tragic. However, with the passing of Vanessa's law, federal regulators have important new tools to enhance on-market drug safety. The legislation is a very real step to reducing the risk that similar tragedies will occur in the future, and it represents a very important federal contribution to the shared goal of patient safety in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to take part in this very important discussion about thalidomide and to pay tribute to the 12,000 babies in 46 countries who were born with malformations.

Like all Canadians, I am saddened to know that only some 8,000 of these babies made it past their first birthday. Let me assure the House, as has already been expressed by other members on this side of the House, that we will be supporting the motion today.

Many of my colleagues are contributing to this debate by bringing forward varying perspectives, sometimes their own personal stories or experiences, to this very important issue. However, if the best predictor of future behaviour is indeed past behaviour, it is important to consider the historical perspective of the regulatory framework in our country.

It is important to consider what was in place in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, and how this framework has evolved since then. The thalidomide experience caused the government to overhaul the Canadian drug regulatory framework. As a result, Canada has one of the safest and most rigorous drug approval systems in the entire world. The system is continuously evolving and improving as we find new ways to better protect the health of all Canadians.

These changes include the very recent improvements brought forward through Bill C-17, known as Vanessa's law. This bill, brought forward by the Minister of Health received royal assent earlier this month.

Canadians can rest assured that I am fully conscious of the fact that whatever improvements have been made since the thalidomide tragedy, they are of no relief whatsoever to the victims, their families, and friends. Nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering inflicted.

That being said, I feel it is very important to look back at the history of our regulatory framework. The history of federal oversight of foods and drugs in Canada started some 150 years ago and predates Confederation. Oversight was initially confined to ensuring that food and drugs were not adulterated.

The Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act of 1909 was the first legislation to register medicines. Although limited in scope, that act was the beginning of this country's legislative protection of the public against drugs administered without medical supervision. This regime prevailed until 1920, at which time the Food and Drugs Act was introduced. This followed the establishment of a federal Department of Health the previous year.

By the late 1920s, regulations developed under the Food and Drugs Act established specific requirements for the licensing of drugs. At that time, the Minister of Health had the authority to cancel or suspend a licence if these requirements were violated.

A significant reworking of the food and drugs regulations did not begin until 1947, but it laid the foundation for the regulations that are in place today. By 1951, and as is still the case today, manufacturers were required to file new drug submissions prior to marketing their drugs. As I said, that has not changed. However, the required content of these submissions has since changed significantly.

It is under that regulatory regime that thalidomide was first approved for sale in Canada to treat sleeplessness and morning sickness. More specifically, it was approved in November 1960 under the brand name, Kevadon, and again in October 1961 as Talimol.

In 1962, the drug was withdrawn from the Canadian market when it was discovered that it caused birth defects when taken during pregnancy. However, by then a lot of damage had already been done.

As I said previously, approximately 12,000 babies in 46 countries were born with malformations. In Canada, it is estimated that more than 100 Canadian families were impacted. The tragic circumstances surrounding thalidomide's removal from the market in the 1960s prompted a complete revision of the Food and Drugs Act and the food and drug regulations. These revisions were made to strengthen Health Canada's regulatory oversight and data requirements for new drug submissions.

The government asked the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to appoint a special committee to review new drug procedures under the Food and Drugs Act. The intent was to critically review the act and associated regulatory powers in order for Health Canada to more effectively carry out its purpose and to protect the public.

In December 1962, new legislation was introduced that substantially broadened Health Canada's powers. For the first time, Health Canada was given the authority to enact regulations respecting the distribution or conditions of distribution of drug samples; the prohibition of sale of certain drugs; the methods of preparation, manufacture, preservation, packing, labelling, storing, and testing of new drugs; and the sale or conditions of sale of any new drug. In January 1963, a complete revision of the Food and Drug Regulations concerning the sale and distribution of new drugs was finalized, and new regulations were arrived at in October 1963. These revisions imposed strict safety requirements. For the first time, manufacturers were required to produce “substantial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug”, including clinical case reports and in vitro studies, in addition to the previous safety requirements.

At the time that thalidomide was initially authorized, the package of information related to the drug was limited, contained in only a small binder of data. Now the volume of data received by Health Canada for the review of a new drug can fill several hundred binders, with safety, efficacy, and quality-related data.

Given the observations noted by the special committee in the 1960s, drug distribution was also an important issue to be addressed in revising the Food and Drug Regulations. The situation was brought into focus when it was disclosed that the greatest distribution of thalidomide was to the medical profession, as free samples to give to patients. Reports also surfaced that individuals were taking delivery of these unsolicited samples and selling them to wholesalers, pharmacists, and others. The Food and Drug Regulations were therefore amended to discourage excessive and unsolicited sampling, through maintenance of complete distribution records by manufacturers.

Today, the post-thalidomide 1960s revisions of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations regarding Health Canada's regulatory responsibilities, the new drug submission requirements, as well as the distribution and sampling of prescription medicines, remain substantially the same. As science has evolved, the revised framework has allowed Health Canada to require appropriate and through studies to support drug approvals. Through the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, Health Canada regulates the safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceutical drugs. The pharmaceutical drugs program involves pre-market review, post-market surveillance and compliance, and, of course, enforcement.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the most recent substantive revision to the Food and Drugs Act, completed earlier this month, is the recently adopted Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. This legislation enables Health Canada to better respond to drug safety issues and improve patient safety related to prescription and over-the-counter drugs, vaccines, gene therapies, cell tissues and organs, and medical devices. It includes new measures to strengthen safety oversight of therapeutic products over their life cycle. These measures are intended to improve Health Canada's ability to collect post-market safety information, take appropriate action when a serious health risk is identified, and help ensure that drug safety information is available to Canadians. As well, these measures serve to promote greater confidence in the oversight of therapeutic products by increasing transparency and improving safety of their use.

In Canada, manufacturers must now file a submission with Health Canada and receive authorization before a new drug can be marketed. These submissions contain substantial information and data about a drug's safety, effectiveness, and quality, as well as side effects, warnings, precautions, and contraindications. Health Canada also continues to enhance its post-marketing surveillance and assessment of programs for health products. Comprehensive evaluations include information from post-marketing surveillance, on a global scale, to determine whether the benefits of a marketed drug continue to outweigh its risks.

The 1960s thalidomide tragedy highlighted the need to reform Canada's drug approval process, and prompted a modernization of the Food and Drugs Act and underlying regulations, which has shaped today's drug regulation standards in Canada. The drug review process continues to evolve and improve, but five decades after the thalidomide tragedy, the initial legislative reforms brought about by the result of this sad chapter in our history continues to underpin Health Canada's legislation and practices.

I look forward to hearing about the minister's constructive meeting with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada and what support we can offer these victims.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the government will be supporting the motion today. It is certainly a very emotional issue.

No incident has had a greater impact on the drug safety system in this country than the authorization of thalidomide in the 1960s. The terrible consequences for the pregnant women who used the drug and the children who were born to them sparked major changes in the way Canada approaches drug approvals and surveillance. The modern system that protects Canadians so well today is one of the enduring legacies of this dark chapter in drug regulation.

What we can never forget, and what we have heard loudly and clearly, is that the past is not over for the victims. Thalidomide survivors are still coping with daily struggles that most of us will never fully understand or have to go through. As their physical struggles grow greater and the mental strain of an uncertain future weighs even heavier upon them, the dedication and perseverance these individuals demonstrate every single day of their lives is incredibly moving. The number of challenges they have to face day in, day out from the moment they wake up to the time they go to bed is unimaginable. The physical, mental, and spiritual toll is immense and tiring.

Individually they have shown so much strength, and the fact that they have come together to form an association that does so much good work and helps so many people is admirable.

The government recognizes that the hardships they face are now growing. The physical toll that aging takes on all of us is greatly magnified for them. For instance, simple things like standing up for extended periods or walking for a few minutes have become a real challenge for the majority of thalidomide victims. These activities cause them extreme pain. Many are also now at an age when their parents, often their primary caregivers, have either passed on or can no longer look after them.

The struggles victims face every day have become greater than they have ever been before. According to the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, everyday chores and simple tasks that we take for granted, such as eating, getting dressed, cleaning homes, or brushing teeth, have all become daily challenges.

The majority of victims require modifications to their vehicles and to their homes and clothing to allow them to have a decent quality of life. This costs money, and every one of us can understand how quickly these expenses can add up. Let us think about how costly it is to renovate a standard kitchen. Now let us think about how much more expensive it would be if the kitchen would have to be customized in proportion so that the cupboards and counters could be reached to perform daily tasks.

In order to help victims overcome the many limitations they face every day, the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada has developed an accommodation program tailored to each member's needs. This leadership deserves to be recognized. According to the association, the objective of this program is to ensure that every Canadian thalidomide victim is able to maintain and develop their autonomy in performing various daily activities and to enable them to participate in community activities.

Thalidomide victims have continuously shown determination, strength, and perseverance by having jobs and raising families of their own, but they are worried about their future. They want to talk about their needs, and we are here to listen.

My colleague, the Minister of Health, told the House on Tuesday that she is committed to having that discussion with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada in person and to reviewing the association's proposal. This will be an opportunity to listen, to share, and to explore what has been done in other jurisdictions also facing these types of challenges.

For members' reference, the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada was founded by Randolph Warren in the late 1980s. It was formed to help coordinate the advocacy of thalidomide victims in securing compensation for the tragedy in the 1960s. The association worked closely with the War Amputees of Canada to lobby for a compensation package for victims, a package that was provided in 1991. Over the last few years, we have seen more and more countries compensate thalidomide victims. For many countries, this is the first step they have offered to survivors.

In 1991, Canada provided what was presented at the time as a one-time compensation package to victims. This government recognizes that the needs of thalidomide survivors then were markedly different from what they are today. We as a government are ready to discuss what more can be done to meet the very specialized ongoing needs of these victims.

Members of the House will know that thalidomide was originally sold in the early 1960s in Canada to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. What emerged were thousands of tragic stories in Canada and worldwide that sparked a sea change in the way we approach the approval of new drugs in Canada.

It is impossible to tell how many pregnancies ended in miscarriage because of the complications caused by the drug. Many other children died soon after birth, causing emotional devastation to parents and families. Those children who survived faced, and are still facing, difficult lives because of the birth abnormalities associated with the drug. Indeed, nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering that has been inflicted.

Canada was not the only country affected by this tragedy. Around the world, 12,000 children in 46 countries were born with birth defects caused by thalidomide. It is estimated that only 8,000 survived past their first birthday, which is truly a tragic outcome, and the number of survivors in Canada today is less than 100.

Our country is not alone in needing to find ways to address the needs of thalidomide survivors. We can learn from what other countries have done to address the ongoing needs of their citizens facing similar growing health concerns. As the Minister of Health indicated this week, our government will have that conversation with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada.

While it is difficult to fully understand the daily challenges of thalidomide victims, it is all too easy to comprehend how this group of people has more reasons to be distrustful of the drug safety system than anyone else. They and their families have paid a terrible price for a system that failed to do the job it was supposed to do, and yet thalidomide survivors have done something truly incredible: they have worked to make current drug approval systems even better, and they have persevered.

The Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada played an extraordinary and unprecedented role many years ago in the review and approval of the thalidomide product in the United States as a treatment for multiple forms of cancer. At various times over the years, the group has shared its experience in participating in that process with Canadian regulators. The group was also consulted before Health Canada's decision in 2010 to approve thalidomide for multiple myeloma.

Their involvement in the approval of thalidomide in the face of the tragedy in their lives and in the lives of their families must have been incredibly difficult, but as they have done throughout their lives, they persevered. Their participation in the process has helped ensure that all possible precautions are taken and that drugs are used safety.

That includes physicians being trained to prescribe the drug appropriately and patients being properly informed of the risk. It is an incredible part of the legacy being left by the victims of thalidomide that patients with multiple myeloma now have access to this very important treatment. From great tragedy can come positive change. Thalidomide victims know this and have been active participants in improving the drug safety system so that Canadians are better protected.

Our colleague, the hon. member for Oakville, also understands this. His daughter Vanessa tragically died of heart attack while taking a prescription drug that was later deemed not safe and removed from the market. Bill C-17, which was recently passed with all-party support in the House and Senate, was named Vanessa's law in her honour. The act gives the Minister of Health new tools with which to identify potential safety risks related to medications and stronger powers to make sure the problems that are identified are dealt with quickly and effectively.

Before their products are authorized for sale in Canada, drug manufacturers are required to do extensive research and provide substantial evidence to Health Canada in their application, demonstrating that the drug is safe and effective. In spite of this, once medications are being used by a wide range of actual patients, we know that new safety risks can emerge.

Although clinical trial groups are structured to represent as broad a range of patients as possible, they can never truly capture every variable imaginable and every vulnerable group. Even with our best efforts and the best research available, there will always be some factors that will only emerge once the drugs are being used by actual patients, perhaps those coping with other conditions at the same time.

That is where the life-cycle approach to drug safety comes into effect. The life-cycle approach means that Health Canada's role as a regulator is ongoing.

Vanessa's law gives the Minister of Health new powers and tools that will make that ongoing regulatory role more effective. Since most serious adverse reactions to drugs result in hospitalization, a new adverse reaction reporting requirement for health care institutions will give the minister new insight into these events. Regulations are being developed to support this requirement, which will allow the regulator to reach into the health care system and extract data to provide a better window on what is happening in the real world with patients.

Other powers under Vanessa's law that have come into force immediately have given the minister the ability to take action promptly if and when new risks to health are identified. Vanessa's law gives the Minister of Health greater power over the removal of therapeutic products from the marketplace when they present imminent or serious risks to the health and safety of Canadians. Until now, Health Canada has worked within the restrictions of the older Food and Drugs Act to persuade companies to remove drugs from the market if they are found to be unsafe. Most of the time this approach has been successful, although it sometimes takes longer than any of us would like. On a few rare occasions it has not worked and the minister did not have the power to force or withdraw these products. With the passage of this new law, if the force of law is needed, the minister now has the power to act without having to undertake any negotiations with pharmaceutical companies while potentially dangerous drugs remain on the market.

Vanessa's law also gives the government new tools to ensure that risks associated with drugs are well-communicated. Many risk situations are better addressed through improved labelling rather than complete market withdrawal. Previously, Health Canada only had the ability to negotiate label changes with manufacturers. With the new law, manufacturers will be required to comply, and to do so within prescribed timelines. If Health Canada does not have all of the information it needs to assess the safety of a drug on the market, the minister now has the power to compel anyone holding that information to share it with her in order to protect the health of Canadians. In the event that the information simply does not yet exist, Health Canada can also require new studies to be conducted. All of these things together will vastly improve Health Canada's ability to assess and take targeted action where it is needed the most.

Vanessa's law will also help to improve the ability of Canadians to make decisions about their health by ensuring that information about authorized drug clinical trials is made public to all Canadians in a consistent and timely manner. This will also be achieved through new regulations that are currently being developed.

I also want to highlight that this government's commitment to an open government is long-standing. It is part of the overall efforts to foster greater accountability, to provide Canadians with more opportunities to learn and participate in government, and to drive innovation and economic opportunities. I am pleased to say that our Minister of Health has made transparency and openness a key priority during her mandate.

The decisions taken by this government impact the day-to-day lives of Canadians and we acknowledge they have the right to understand how and why we make those decisions. All Canadian families want that level of discussion. Canadians want to feel meaningfully involved and consulted within the decision-making process. We have listened to Canadians and have provided what we believe are the right tools to ensure fairness, openness and transparency.

Health Canada plays an important role in being open and transparent, and continues to prioritize the protection of health and safety among Canadians. Greater transparency and openness with Canadians strengthens the trust in our regulatory decisions. Canadians can see for themselves that Health Canada continues to make regulatory decisions based on valid evidence. The credible, timely information Health Canada provides is absolutely vital in helping Canadians to make informed choices for themselves and their families.

Since the thalidomide tragedy, Canada and other countries have also invested in research. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada both actively support research related to improving health of mothers and babies, as members will hear later today.

Today, we are focusing our discussion on a tragic event that took place over 50 years ago but has never been forgotten. It is a tragic event that has terribly affected the lives of thalidomide victims and their families.

I would like to reiterate that our Conservative government recognizes the challenges that thalidomide victims face each and every day. We are already reviewing their proposal and we look forward to meeting with them very soon. The health and safety of all Canadians is a priority for our government. That commitment, of course, includes the victims of thalidomide, who have already suffered far too much.

We are ready to listen and to ensure that everyone is heard and included.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) full support should be offered to survivors of thalidomide; (b) the urgent need to defend the rights and dignity of those affected by thalidomide should be recognized; and (c) the government should provide support to survivors, as requested by the Thalidomide Survivors Taskforce.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I am very honoured to rise in the House today to speak to this very important and historic motion from the NDP.

The motion before us calls on the government to right the wrong of the tragic consequences that took place, when, in 1961, the Government of Canada approved the sale of thalidomide as a safe drug for the treatment of morning sickness for pregnant women. It is so important today that we speak out collectively and with one voice, as Parliament, to understand and to address this urgent and tragic issue.

I would like to thank the member for Outremont, the leader of the official opposition, for agreeing to and giving his full support to this motion being brought forward today. I would also like to thank members from all sides because we now know that the government will be supporting this motion with a slight amendment. I am very thankful for that. We have had a lot of discussion. It is historic and important that today we will be speaking in this debate, and we will be bringing forward the visibility of this issue. I hope that on Monday we will be voting on this motion and that it will be a unanimous vote.

On Tuesday, I had the honour to be joined, with my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, by two members of the thalidomide survivors task force. Mercédes Benegbi and Josée Lake came from Montreal to join us in a press conference, where they spoke and shared some of their experiences of what it has been like, over more than 50 years, to be a thalidomide survivor. It was very moving to hear their words and to hear them speak about their deeply personal experience, and of the experience of 95 survivors in Canada. Hearing what they had to say is a day that I will not forget.

I am also very thankful that the people at The Globe and Mail decided to focus on this issue. We saw the original story that they did last Saturday, which was a very comprehensive piece. It gave us the history and background, and brought us to the current situation today, with so many survivors living in pain and suffering and with great financial hardship. To me, it was one of those moments when a whole bunch of things came together. We have to recognize that the thalidomide survivors have for 50-plus years been living in a way that has been quite invisible.

It is a story that we are aware of. I remember when we debated Bill C-17 in the House, on drug safety, a bill that we supported. I remember that when I debated that bill in the House, I mentioned the history of thalidomide. I did not know then that a few months later we would actually be debating the issue of thalidomide. There is some continuity here, and some historical importance to what we are doing. Of course, drug safety in this country is critically important, and although we would have liked to see some improvements to it, the bill that was passed a few months ago was a very important bill.

When we look at history and see what has taken place in this country around drug safety, and we look at this terrible tragic situation that took place in the early 1960s, it is so compelling. It speaks to the core of why we are here. As parliamentarians and legislators, we need to pay attention and ensure that there is proper regulatory oversight for drug safety.

When this drug was first brought on to the market in the early sixties, it was deemed to be safe. The tragedy is that when the story began to unfold and the consequences began to be known about women who had miscarriages and babies being born with terrible deformities, Canada was very slow to react. It took decades, right up until 1991, for there to be even some discussion around compensation.

If we look at the amount of compensation that was given in 1991, we can see how terribly inadequate the small settlements were to the survivors. It really did nothing to help them. They even had to sign gag orders that they would not speak out afterward. The small settlements they got in no way dealt with the long-term effects of what they were dealing with.

We know today that the consequences of thalidomide have left people dealing with very severe and debilitating pain. It has taken 50 years of work, which has taken a toll on them, not only emotionally and financially, but of course physically. Many of the survivors are now suffering from nerve damage and painful wear and tear on their bodies. It has caused enormous challenges for them, including the loss of the ability to use their limbs to care for themselves, and damage to their spines and joints, which severely limits their mobility. It has impacted on their ability to gain employment. It means that they have often had to depend on others for very basic tasks, such as using the toilet, dressing, preparing meals, doing all of the daily things we take for granted.

Fifty years later, with this group of people who are aging, the health consequences of what they face have become even more serious. It is critical that we not lose more time. There are only 95 thalidomide survivors left in Canada. I believe there were originally about 120 people; some have already died. As these survivors age, their health and financial needs will only grow.

Time is of the essence, and it is very important that we take a stand today and that Parliament speak out. New Democrats call on the government to right the wrong and immediately sit down with the survivors task force to begin the work to arrive at a just settlement for the survivors. That is what this motion would accomplish if it is passed. I want to stress that time is of the essence. We cannot lose another day, week, or year.

There are some precedents in terms of what other countries have done. For example, the government in the United Kingdom is providing regular payments to survivors. Germany offered a one-time lump sum payment. The thalidomide survivors task force is asking the government to sit down and work with it in creating a program that would provide a one-time payment to address people's immediate needs, as well as ongoing payments that would assist individuals based on their own individual circumstances. It is something that needs to be done based on individual needs.

I have had a lot emails over the last couple of days, and I want to refer to one from a former colleague, Penny Priddy, who was a member of Parliament for Surrey. She wrote:

It was the summer of 1963 and I was working at HSC/Sick Kids in Toronto. Her name was “Maria”. She was about a year old. [...]

“Maria” was born without arms. [...] Her legs were not able to support any weight. Her mother had taken thalidomide. [...]

Given what we know, I expect her life was filled with challenges and barriers that required a strength that many of us cannot begin to imagine. [...]

Thank you...for listening to the voices of all of the Marias' who were victims of a system that was so rushed to get a questionable drug to market that they did not consider the unthinkable legacy that they were creating for its smallest citizens.

Today, with this motion, we have an opportunity to right that wrong, and I thank all members of the House who will be supporting it.

Health

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a glaring lack of federal oversight exists in a little known but nonetheless important aspect of our health care system. I am referring to the reprocessing and reuse of medical devices designed and intended for single-use only.

The federal government has undisputed jurisdiction for regulating the manufacture of both pharmaceutical products and medical devices. I have already asked the government why it has been remiss in regulating drug compounders, those entities that are not strictly speaking drug manufacturers or pharmacies as the oversight and regulation of the latter is the responsibility of the provinces and the former of Health Canada.

In regard to the reprocessing of singe-use medical devices, in 2004 the Auditor General urged Health Canada to consider regulating these devices in the same manner as it regulates new medical devices. However, the department concluded that the Food and Drugs Act, from which the medical devices regulations derive their authority, was not intended to apply to the use of a device after its sale.

The issue was subsequently raised by a witness at the health committee last spring during the committee's hearings on Bill C-17, Vanessa's Law.

Suddenly, this past July, Health Canada announced that it was encouraging, although apparently not requiring, reprocessors to apply for and obtain a licence for reprocessed single-use devices in Canada. The government went on to say that one reprocessor had, in fact, obtained a licence from Health Canada for one reprocessed single-use device out of 200 or so in commerce in Canada. This device was a non-invasive device, an inflatable compression sleeve, which is clearly not an example of the riskiest reprocessed single-use device.

Why will the government not act decisively and follow the Auditor General's 2004 recommendation to begin strict regulatory oversight of the market for reprocessed single-use medical devices?

What prompted the government to move away from its earlier view, that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, to a more confused position that reflects a half-hearted commitment to ensuring the safety of patients undergoing invasive procedures with reprocessed devices?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau HallOttawa

November 5th, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 5th day of November, 2014, at 5:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco); Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act; Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; and Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not explained her inaction.

Just think about it. For the past eight years, Canadians and the NDP have been calling for better drug safety measures, including in Bill C-17, yet today Health Canada is still unable to stop the sale of a dangerous drug in Canada.

What steps will the minister take to fix this situation? The health of Canadians is on the line. When is she going to take responsibility?

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

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with respect to the final stages of Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, and I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. 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, shall be deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

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

June 13, 2014—Report stage of Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act—the Minister of Health.

Health

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

The committee has studied the bill, and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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.

Bill C-24—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could be having the kind of conversation that would reflect the honesty of what is going on in this place, which would mean that I was not addressing my question through the Speaker to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration but to the puppet masters in the various leaders' offices who have decided that the House is going through the charade of late night sittings until midnight in the absence of the kind of trust and political consensus we should have been building in this place to allow us to avoid long debates on bills on which we completely agree, such as Bill C-17, to get it to committee and not take up our time in speeches, and allow us to have the kind of debate that this particular bill really requires.

If we had the kind of respect across the House that should be the job of all parliamentarians, we would not be sitting until midnight in a farcical exercise to prove we are working hard, because we are not going to be working smart by the end. I know what happened last June when we worked every night until midnight. Late night sittings do not advance the kind of parliamentary performance that our voters deserve.

I do not know if my hon. colleague would agree with me, but would it not be better if the House leaders were able to work together so we could focus our time deservedly on this bill and move up the passage of the ones on which we all agree?

Health

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to recognize and thank the member for Oakville for his tireless efforts on this and the obvious passion that he brings to this file.

He is absolutely right, Bill C-17 has the support of all members of this House. Yesterday, shamefully, the NDP played partisan political games in delaying this before it could go to the health committee.

The NDP members need to answer to those Canadians, the millions of Canadians who are waiting for this bill to be passed. They have to stop playing partisan political games and work with us to make sure this bill gets passed.

Let me assure the member, his family, and the millions of Canadians who are relying on this that this side of the House will do everything in our power to make sure this gets passed.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 has the support of every party in this House. When passed, it would empower the Minister of Health to, among other things, order dangerous drugs off the market without delay and require reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

This bill is, without exaggeration, a matter of life and death for Canadians who may suffer serious adverse drug reactions in the coming months. The minister has stated that she is open to amendments to further strengthen the bill.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs please tell us why this legislation has not yet been referred to the health committee?

Vanessa's Law

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, would help identify potentially dangerous drugs and ensure the quick recall of unsafe drugs. It would require reporting of serious adverse drug reactions, so doctors and patients are aware of new risks, and it would introduce tough new fines for companies that put Canadians at risk.

The Minister of Health has even declared that she is open to amendments to further strengthen this bill. I cannot believe that New Democrats have chosen to stonewall its passage. They wasted hours yesterday talking about how important this bill is, but when asked to fast-track it, they simply refused. I pleaded with six NDP members yesterday in the House to request their House leader to get Bill C-17 to committee as soon as possible. Every one of them refused or ignored me entirely.

This legislation would save lives. We need to get it passed. The NDP will have to answer to Canadian patients for this inexcusable delay. The NDP should stop playing political games with patient safety.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech and frankly, I am astonished. This is about being for or against democracy. If he could, would he go straight to the checkout without buying groceries, so to speak?

The party opposite would like to pass the bills in a hurry. I, for example, have had no opportunity to speak to Bill C-17, Vanessa's law, so how are the people in my constituency supposed to know that the bill exists? They will know if I can speak to it and that finds its way into social media and the press. If not, they will never know what is in the bill, unless the hon. member comes to my region to talk about it. This is a way in which one can express oneself.

Can the hon. member tell me where the blame lies in all this? In the fall, we began this session of Parliament late. How many weeks have we lost? How many times has the government prorogued Parliament? If the government had not wasted time and limited members' speaking time, perhaps we would not be in this situation today.

Perhaps the hon. member is running out of steam. Perhaps he is getting fed up with being a member of Parliament. Perhaps he would like to do something else in life. Perhaps he prefers the open road to open debate as a way of giving people information. However, we feel that it is important to fulfill that role here.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue in which the hon. member has taken a great interest for obvious reasons and has been a champion. It is fair to say that if it was not for his leadership and initiative, we would not have the opportunity to be debating this particular bill on the floor of the House of Commons today.

What was disappointing to me today was, contrary to what we had been led to believe and the impression I had this morning, we did not succeed in getting the debate to a conclusion today. This is one of the difficulties we find. We debated the number of speakers people have put up. According to the NDP, there was some virtue in the fact that they have had more speakers in the evenings, even though the statistics are quite different than that when we look at the fullness of debate.

Our approach is to let those who feel passionately about it have their say, allow the debate to occur, but also allow a decision to be made, allow a vote to happen, allow a bill to proceed to the next stage.

This is an important bill. These extended hours will give us the opportunity to get it to the next stage because clearly simply relying on the good faith of the opposition to allow it to proceed to the next stage is not sufficient. That is why we have to sometimes take unusual steps with our process to allow that to happen. Members should keep in mind that we are only talking about getting it to second reading in the House of Commons.

I often take school visits and school groups through the stages of getting a bill adopted. I explain that it has to go to committee to be studied, to have witnesses heard, and then be put to a vote. It then comes back to the House for report stage and to be voted on there. There will then be a further debate in the House at third reading and be put to a vote. I then say, “Is it a law now?” They all say yes. Then I say, “No. Guess what? It then has to go to the Senate for all the same things all over again”. Then they realize that there are indeed many hurdles and safeguards.

If we want to get bills passed, if we want to get changes in place and get Bill C-17 in place, it requires a real commitment from all of us to put our shoulder to the wheel and get things done. That is what this motion would allow us to do on Bill C-17 and a number of other bills that are before us that Canadians want to see us deliver results on.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is regarding Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. I am trying to understand what these extended hours will mean with respect to Bill C-17.

As the House knows, Vanessa's law will, among other things, empower the Minister of Health to order dangerous drugs that are harming Canadians off the market immediately, change labels, give better safety warnings, and so forth.

The timeliness of this bill is important. For example, we know that there are hundreds of patients in Canada who suffer serious adverse drug reactions daily. That is what this bill is designed to address. If this bill is passed sooner, without a word of exaggeration it will save lives. It will protect Canadians from serious adverse drug reactions.

I did not count how many NDP members spoke in support of the bill today. I think it was 10 or more. The New Democrats are supporting the bill in principle. They want to get it to committee to talk about amendments. I would love to get it to committee to talk about amendments, but we did not get the direction or agreement from the NDP House leader today to send it to committee. We need to do that soon in order to get it through committee, passed in the House of Commons, and sent to the Senate for consideration before the end of June.

Therefore, I would ask the government House leader this. What do these extended hours mean with respect to Bill C-17, Vanessa's law?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by sharing a couple of sentiments with my friend.

First, on this side of the House—speaking for myself at least, and many others, including the Prime Minister—we congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their success and wish them all the best in the next round, where I am optimistic Canadians will have much to look forward to.

Second, I have to agree with the member about the fact that what we saw today was a preview of what we would see if the NDP were ever to win government. We saw a grilling where the highlight was the question of NDP corruption and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. That is what we could expect to see if the NDP were ever to become government, and because Canadians know that, we will never have to fear it happening.

That abuse of taxpayers' funds goes beyond the question of breaking rules and not following rules. It goes to the whole NDP philosophy that taxpayers' money is there for them, they should get more of it, and they should spend it in every way possible. That is what the NDP is all about.

We in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, have an approach that is focused on a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament that respects taxpayers' dollars. As a result, we will continue with our agenda.

I will note the highlight today from the NDP. The NDP was defending itself on charges of improper spending and improperly using taxpayers' dollars for partisan activity. The member did not point out that the NDP's positive agenda was what they were proposing today in the House of Commons on one of the rare days when NDP members actually get to put forward their own policy proposals. It is funny how he says, “That is not the highlight”. I agree with him, because when they do get in power, they will have very little to advocate for.

That said, we on this side do follow the rules, and the rules require that we continue with the NDP opposition day motion for the balance of the day.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, before we return to our constituencies for a week.

Upon our return we will roll up our sleeves and work hard for Canadians in the final sittings until the summer.

On Monday, May 26, we will consider Bill C-18, which is the agricultural growth act.

On Tuesday, May 27, we will resume the second reading debate on Vanessa's law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

That will be followed by Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act at second reading.

The next day will see us continue our productive, hard-working, and orderly agenda by returning to the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship act. As hon. members might recall, the New Democrats proposed a second reading amendment to block the passage of this important bill.

On Thursday, May 29, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Act. After that debate concludes, we will consider Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage. Finally, we will consider Bill C-10, the Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, at report stage and third reading on Friday, May 30.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this spring.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say here what I said on Twitter last week; that is, I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the working relationship that we have enjoyed over the last couple of years. I wish him well with his new critic responsibilities.

Now let me thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his first Thursday question. I welcome the hon. member to his new role as the House leader of the official opposition. I have been told by my staff that he is the tenth House leader from across the aisle with whom I have had the pleasure of working.

While I am confident that his predecessor has briefed him on our government's approach toward facilitating a hard-working, productive, and orderly House of Commons, I see that he has already fallen into one of the grievous errors of his predecessor. For a whole bunch of reasons, I would encourage him to look in some detail at the House of Commons rules and procedures.

For example, he was concerned with time allocation and referred to it again as limiting debate, yet when he reviews the rules, as I know he is going to, and I know he will do that with some enthusiasm in the near term, he will notice citation 533 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, which reminds us that:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

That is what we have always tried to do here: schedule debates so that we can make decisions, have fair and adequate debate, and give members of Parliament an opportunity to decide questions. It is not to curtail debate; it is to schedule and facilitate decisions being made. I hope that the member will have regard for those rules, something that had escaped his predecessor.

However, I should say that I do look forward to working with him on our business in the future. That said—and I hope that he will not take personal offence to this—in our scheduling of these matters, we will continue to work off of the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar.

Today, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act. Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Vanessa’s law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Monday will see the third day of second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

That is one that I know he is a great supporter of.

Tuesday, April 1, shall be the first allotted day. It being April 1 after all, I assume that the NDP will ask us to debate one of its economic policies.

Finally, starting on Wednesday, we will debate our spring budget implementation bill to enact many of the important measures contained in economic action plan 2014, our low-tax plan for Canadians, as we make further progress on balancing the budget in 2015.

I might also add that with regard to the grain situation, Bill C-30 is now before the House. There have been very positive discussions among the parties to date. I hope that they will lead further to being able to have that bill passed through at least second reading on a fairly constructive basis. I hope those discussions will yield fruit, in which case there might be some change to the schedule I have presented to the House today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for the opposition for her very kind comments about the abilities on this side of the House with regard to procedure. Of course, I am only as good as the team that I have.

However, I will say that one thing I have tried to outline and to make clear over some period of time is that the use of time allocation is very distinct from the use of closure. We have chosen an approach in this government to use time allocation as a scheduling device to set an amount of time that we believe is appropriate for debate on any particular issue, which, as the hon. member in her own comments confirmed, in some cases results in even more time being allocated than is necessary for debate.

One of the benefits, though, is that the time does not have to be used. If all speakers complete their discussion of the subject, the debate can collapse and we can move on to other matters. So, really, no time is to be lost from that approach. It is a very positive thing, one that allows certainty for the benefit of all members about how much debate we will have, when votes will happen, and when decisions will be made. That is the most important thing for us in our work up here: making decisions and getting the job done.

As for this morning, I know that the NDP keeps seeing conspiracies and ghosts behind curtains, particularly the House leader for the NDP, who has that concern.

I think everyone knows that the only time one can move these time allocation motions—and we do not need to have a great command of the Standing Orders to know this—is at the start of government orders, at the start of the day. So I really had no choice.

However, the committee had considerable flexibility, which it did exercise. There was no conspiracy. There was no obstruction.

I hope that the opposition House leader will take the benefit of the two weeks to calm down, hopefully look around, see that there are no people waiting behind every curtain and every tree, out to get him, and that some of the conspiracies he imagines are simply not there. It will lower his blood pressure. It will make his life much more comfortable, in total.

I know that the opposition whip will share that advice from me, with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-20, Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act.

Then, we will return to our constituencies, where we will have a chance to reconnect with our real bosses.

When we return on Monday, March 24, the House will have the seventh and final allotted day. At the end of that day, we will consider the supplementary estimates, as well as interim supply, so that these bills will be able to pass through the other place before the end of our fiscal year.

The government's legislative agenda for the balance of that week will focus on protecting Canadians. Tuesday, March 25 will see us start the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, a bill that will implement world-class safety standards in the offshore and nuclear sectors. That evening we will finish the debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the foreign affairs committee respecting the situation of Jewish refugees.

On Wednesday, March 26, we will consider Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at report stage and third reading. This bill will complement legislation already passed by the provincial legislatures in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, given the shared jurisdiction that exists in the offshore sector.

On Thursday, March 27, we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Through this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and online exploitation.

Finally, on Friday, March 28, I hope that we will be able to start the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, also known as Vanessa's law.

National Lyme Disease Strategy Act

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Oakville, moved that Bill C-442, An Act respecting a National Lyme Disease Strategy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said: Mr. Speaker, today I am very honoured to introduce this bill for a national strategy on Lyme disease at second reading. When we are able to work together as members of Parliament, anything is possible.

Today I stand here with the great honour of presenting a bill in my name. If I could, I would remove my name and put the names of all of us on it. This is a truly non-partisan effort, and this is reflected in the process of this legislation in the House so far.

At first reading, in June 2012, the seconder of my bill was my friend the hon. Liberal member for Etobicoke North, who has been very active on many health issues. Today I have the enormous honour of having my bill seconded by the hon. member for Oakville, himself a champion on a number of health issues. I commend him and the Minister of Health, in fact all of the Conservative members, for bringing forward Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, Vanessa's law. I look forward to seeing that legislation made into law. These are important steps, which prove that individuals can change public policy, as I hope we will here.

By coincidence, the hon. member for Oakville has also taken a stand on the Lyme disease issue, having written a foreword to a Canadian book called Ending Denial: The Lyme Disease Epidemic.

In this non-partisan spirit, the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, was the first party to signal full support for my bill. The New Democratic Party health critic, the hon. member for Vancouver East, signalled some time ago that I could count on her party's support. It means a tremendous amount to me personally to have this support. It acknowledges the importance of this legislation.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove, the Minister of Health, has herself been very willing to work with me, which means the bill has the potential for success. We have sat down and worked over this bill, and there are some amendments that I would expect to see in committee. I do not regard them in any way as other than helpful. This bodes well for our ability to work together to make a difference on this issue.

What is this issue? Everyone in the Chamber is now familiar with the fact that Lyme disease is spreading. It is spread through a very specific bacteria that is carried by ticks, often blacklegged ticks or deer ticks, and it is now spreading to other species of ticks. The bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi is a bacterium that brings with it both a potential personal tragedy and a very troubling set of symptoms for diagnosis.

As I have said, this disease is spread through ticks. As we have seen, this disease can be delivered to other areas through the agency of birds. The range in which these ticks occurs across Canada has been spreading, and it is part of the increase in vector-borne diseases that are anticipated in relation to global warming and the climate crisis.

We know there are more cases of the disease. It was shocking to many, when in the summer of 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, Georgia, issued a revised estimate of Lyme disease in the United States. Its new estimate increased the prevalence of Lyme disease ten-fold, reporting that the previous year's 30,000 cases were probably 300,000. This is a timely reminder to us in Canada that the incidence of Lyme disease is spreading.

To the credit of Health Canada, since 2009 Lyme disease has been a reportable illness in Canada. There is no question that we know it exists in Canada, and health professionals have a mandatory duty to report a diagnosis of Lyme disease. We are also aware that it is under-reported. Currently any medical practitioner who diagnosis Lyme disease has a responsibility to inform the provincial health authorities, who in turn report this to the Public Health Agency of Canada. At this point, only 310 cases have been reported across Canada.

I am sure my colleagues on all sides of the House know that the number of cases is somewhat low, just in terms of our own anecdotal experience of constituents who have Lyme disease, and from the number of petitions we have received in this place from people urging us to find a solution and urging better treatment and a cure. We cannot estimate exactly how low that is, but as in the United States, I think we will find that as we increase awareness we will have a clearer understanding of the incidence of the disease.

Let me review quickly what the bill would do. This is a bill to deal with the threat of Lyme disease, but it does it in a couple of different ways. The bill's goals are to create a national surveillance system dealing with the problem that I just mentioned; we do not always have good information on exactly where the ticks are spreading and how prevalent they are.

The other area that is important is to get a handle on better awareness, perhaps national standards, or at least a sharing of best practices, to understand the challenges of diagnosis and treatment.

The bill calls for:

3.(b) the establishment of guidelines regarding the prevention, identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease, including a recommended national standard of care that reflects current best practices for the treatment of Lyme disease;

It also calls on the Minister of Health, working with others, to create a national program of educational materials to increase public awareness, but also to assist medical professionals. The process by which this would take place is that once the bill has come into force, there would be a mandatory obligation on the minister of health to convene, within six months, a national conference of provincial and territorial ministers of health, as well as the stakeholders, who are described in the bill as representatives of the medical community and patient groups, for the purpose of developing this national framework.

I am very heartened that at this relatively early stage in the consideration of Bill C-442, it has already received the support of important elements within the medical community. I want to cite particularly, and to thank, Eric Mang, director, health policy and government relations for the College of Family Physicians of Canada, who wrote in the fall of 2013 that they support the bill. He stated:

[The College of Family Physicians of Canada] supports further studying the economic and health impacts of Lyme Disease to ensure that Canadian physicians have the necessary tools and knowledge at their disposal. Guidelines produced as part of the strategy should include the input of family physicians and be available to all primary health care providers.

Even more recently, on February 27, 2014, I was thrilled to receive a letter from the Canadian Medical Association and its president, Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti. Coming from the medical community, it is important that I read some of this letter into the record at second reading debate. He wrote the following:

Diagnosis of Lyme disease can be difficult because signs and symptoms can be non-specific and found in other conditions. If Lyme disease is not recognized during the early stages, patients may suffer seriously debilitating disease that may be more difficult to treat. Given the increasing incidence of Lyme disease in Canada, continuing education for health care and public health professionals and a national standard of care can improve identification, treatment and management of this disease. Greater awareness of where ticks are endemic in Canada, as well as information on the disease and prevention measures, can help Canadians protect themselves from infection. A national Lyme disease strategy that includes representation from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the medical and patient communities can address concerns around research, surveillance, diagnosis, treatment and management of the disease. In addition, public health prevention measures will advance our current knowledge base, and improve the care and treatment of those suffering from Lyme disease.

With the support of those two important associations of medical professionals, the Canadian Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada, I am encouraged to know that we can work together as members of Parliament from all parties in this place. The approach set out in the bill for a national conference urges federal and provincial jurisdictional responsibility in the health community; the medical community, the doctors, health care professionals, nurses, people who deal with trying to sort out a diagnosis for Lyme disease when it is not always easy; and the patient communities, people who have advocated, who have cried out for help, people for whom this bill represents the first ray of light in what, for many, has been years of suffering. I am enormously encouraged by the support from the medical community.

I want to now turn to the support from the patient community. I would never have thought to put forward a private member's bill on Lyme disease had I not encountered so many Canadians who are suffering from the disease. My first friend who told me she had Lyme disease was Brenda Sterling, of Pictou County, Nova Scotia. From her wheelchair, she told me that she had been bitten by a tick and now she was virtually disabled. I was shocked. I did not know Lyme disease could be so serious when I first met Brenda, but she educated me about it.

Then when I moved to Saanich—Gulf Islands and was living in Sidney, I kept meeting people who were experiencing Lyme disease, some of them kids. It is heartbreaking to know a brilliant, beautiful young woman, Nicole Bottles, who is in a wheelchair and not able to go school. It is not because the wheelchair is a difficulty, but because the Lyme disease, as she says, muddles her brain from time to time. She has trouble concentrating and she has not been able to keep up with her schooling. However, she and her mother, Chris Powell, whom I think have met many of the people in this chamber today, have come to Ottawa and advocated for Bill C-442. They see it as a way to get to better levels of awareness.

I am so grateful to James, Michael, and other young constituents, like Eric, and his family. When I think about why I chose this bill, it had a lot to do with Eric and his family. His father-in-law was a strong supporter of mine, and I wondered how I could ever thank him. I am thankful to Fraser, among many people, for my bringing forward a bill that could try to make a difference in thousands of lives.

As we work toward this bill, let us keep a couple of hopeful things in mind. One is that we should never fear the outdoors. Some people have come to me since this bill was tabled saying, “For Heaven's sake, be careful that we don't create fear of going outside”. I want to emphasize that is not my intention.

I subscribe to the view of some who have described nature deficit disorder as a real threat to our kids. They need to get out and engage with wilderness. They need to be in nature. It increases learning abilities, capabilities, and emotional maturity. It is great for kids to spend time outdoors.

We have become used to the education challenge of a thinning ozone layer, which due to the Montreal protocol is reversing the thinning process. Over the years we have become used to asking what the UV rating is, wearing long-sleeved shirts, remembering to use sunscreen, and wearing a broad-rimmed hat, something that did not occur when I was a kid. These are common-sense prevention measures.

We need common sense to be a part of our daily routine. When our kids go out to play, we need to say, “Tuck your pant legs into your socks”, and when they come in from playing outdoors, to say, “Let me give you a quick check to make sure you haven't picked up a tick”. Those kinds of things are common-sense prevention measures.

The good news when facing Lyme disease is that it is preventable. That is why a federal framework makes so much sense. If we are aware of the disease, and watchful, we will not get it in the first place. However, if we do get it and diagnosis is speedy and correct, the treatment works. The treatment need not take long, and one can recover to a complete state of health and well-being.

Lastly, let us shine a light of hope for those dealing with the challenge of continuing debilitating symptoms. With a real focus and continued research, we can find treatment measures that will work for the entire Lyme patient community.

I am indebted to all of the members who have come here this morning for second reading, and thankful for their support. With their help, this bill will become law.

Vanessa's Law

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I was proud to join Canada's Minister of Health to announce new patient safety legislation, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, subtitled “Vanessa's Law”, named after my daughter, Vanessa Young. In 2000, at age 15, Vanessa's life was sacrificed to maintain the sales of a Wall Street blockbuster drug, Propulsid.

It is difficult to overstate the impact the bill will have for Canadians who take prescription and over the counter drugs. It represents a quantum leap forward in protecting vulnerable patients and reducing serious adverse drug reactions.

Combined with the plain language labelling initiative announced last June, Vanessa's law would: put an end to inadequate safety warnings; empower Health Canada to order unsafe drugs off the market when dangers first become clear; require mandatory adverse drug reaction reporting, creating an early and robust warning system for patients; and, undoubtedly, reduce preventable harm from drugs and save thousands of lives.

Vanessa would be pleased that her loss of life has led to this powerful legislation to prevent similar tragedies in other families.