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.

[Dr. Joel Lexchin]

I want to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to appear today.

I teach health policy at York University and work as an emergency physician at the University Health Network in Toronto. I've been analyzing, talking about, and writing about pharmaceutical policy for over 30 years, and I'm the author or co-author of about 140 peer-reviewed articles on these topics.

My testimony is going to focus on three issues: first, the need to ensure that any post-market studies are carried out in a timely manner; second, the problems with clinical trials conducted by companies making the products being tested; and finally, the need to improve on the amount of information that Health Canada discloses after it has approved a new drug.

In discussing the first issue, I'll examine the situation regarding the notice of compliance with conditions policy. For the second, I will use the results of a recent systematic review that looks at the results and conclusions of trials funded by drug companies, and those trials that receive funding from other sources. And for the third issue, I'll draw on a study that I and a graduate student recently published, that looked at the quantity and quality of information that's disclosed in the summary basis of decision documents that Health Canada releases after it approves a new drug.

With regard to the notice of compliance with conditions, this is a policy that was adopted back in 1998, and the goal was—and here's a quote from Health Canada—to provide patients suffering from “serious, life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases or conditions” with earlier access to promising new drugs. This is where surrogate markers have suggested that these products offer “effective treatment, prevention, or diagnosis of a disease or condition for which no drug is presently marketed in Canada”, or significantly improve efficacy or significantly diminish risk over existing therapies.

One example of a surrogate marker would be that a drug shrinks the size of a cancer tumour. In return for getting a notice of compliance with conditions, companies have to commit, in writing, to undertake confirmatory studies—that is, studies that definitively establish efficacy—and then submit these results to the therapeutic products directorate at Health Canada. If these post-marketing trials do not provide sufficient evidence of clinical benefit, the notice of compliance with conditions could be revoked and products removed from the market. Health Canada will also issue a notice of compliance with conditions for a new indication for an existing product.

Since this policy was adopted in 1998, Health Canada has issued a total of 60 notices of compliance with conditions for either new active substances—these are molecules that have never before been marketed in Canada—or new indications for existing drugs. Out of these 60, seven were either revoked, suspended, not fulfilled, or removed, which leaves 53. Out of those 53, 28 have been fulfilled and 25 have yet to be fulfilled.

A table that I've provided in this brief shows that it took six years for four or more of these 28 to be fulfilled, and of the 25 that have yet to be fulfilled, 15 have been on the market for more than six years. Some have been on the market for as long as 12 years, which means that these drugs are being prescribed by doctors, being taken by patients, and nobody really knows either how well they work, or if they work at all.

Health Canada provides no information that's publicly available as to the status of the clinical trials that are supposed to be undertaken to fulfill the conditions for which these products were licensed.

The second topic is trials funded by drug companies. About 80% of all clinical trials are funded by pharmaceutical companies.

I recently participated in a Cochrane Collaboration review that looked at the results and conclusions of trials funded by drug companies and those that received their funding from other sources. Just as a brief bit of background, the Cochrane Collaboration is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization consisting of about 31,000 volunteers in more than 20 countries. It was formed to organize medical research information in a systematic way to facilitate the choices that health professionals, patients, policy-makers, and others face in health interventions according to the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Our review, which was published two years ago, found that studies that were sponsored by drug and device companies more often had favourable results and conclusions than those that were sponsored by any other source. The findings were consistent across a wide range of diseases and treatments. Specifically, we found that if a study was sponsored by a company, the results were 2.15 times more likely to be positive and the conclusions 2.67 times more likely to be positive than if any other source—charities, hospitals, universities, CIHR—had funded the trials. This indicates that the mere fact that drug companies are sponsors of the trials creates a bias that they're likely to be positive. If the committee wants a copy of this review, I'd be happy to provide an electronic copy.

Finally, with regard to the summary basis of decision documents, this is an initiative that Health Canada started as of January 1, 2005. This is a document that's issued after a new drug or medical device is approved, and it explains the scientific and benefit-risk information that was considered prior to approving the product. Of particular interest to people like me, who are health care professionals, is the section of the summary basis of decision document that contains a description of the pre-market clinical trials that were examined by Health Canada and a summary of the final risk-benefit assessment of the product. Health Canada's position is that as a result of the summary basis of decision documents, Canadian health care professionals and patients will have more information at their disposal to support informed treatment choices.

Recently a graduate student of mine and I examined all 161 summary basis of decision documents that looked at a total of 456 clinical trials that Health Canada had examined between January 1, 2005, and the end of April 2012. We looked particularly at the information that was disclosed about the safety and efficacy of the drugs. We were interested in information about the characteristics of the patients who participated in the trials and about the risks and benefits of the drugs.

For the characteristics of the patients, we looked at information about age, sex, whether the patients were in hospital or were outpatients, and how the patients were chosen for inclusion in the trial.

For the risks and benefits of the drugs, we looked at information about how long the study ran, the statistical significance of the results, whether the drug was compared to a placebo or another drug, what percentage of patients withdrew from the trial, and if there was any difference between the withdrawal rates for people who were taking the new drug and the withdrawal rates for people who were taking either the placebo or the comparator drug.

Here are some of the results we found. The number of summary basis of decision documents that fully reported on the sex of the patient was 32 out of 161. The number of documents that fully reported on the age of the patients was 53 out of 161.

The number of documents that reported on how long the trials ran was 90 out of 161. The number of documents that reported on how many people withdrew from the trials was four out of 157. Four of the documents couldn't be analyzed for this issue. The number of documents that fully reported on differences between withdrawal rates for people taking the new drug and people who were taking either the placebo or the comparator drug was one out of 154.

Our conclusions were:

Overall, clinical trial information in SBDs is presented in a haphazard manner, with no apparent method to its presentation....at least one-third of the potential information about patient trial characteristics and the benefits and risks of tested treatments is missing.

I would be happy to provide an electronic copy of this study to the committee.

Based on the foregoing information, I have two recommendations for changes in Bill C-17.

First, if Health Canada requires post-market trials for drugs, then it has to report on a regular basis, probably annually, on the status of those trials. For instance, are they delayed, and if so why? When are they expected to start? Are they in progress, and when are they expected to be completed? If they are completed, what were the results?

Second, Health Canada should ensure that all of the results of clinical trials dealing with the safety and efficacy of a new drug are made publicly available within one year of completion of the trial, after they have redacted any information that might identify any individual patients.

Finally, I think that Health Canada needs to institute a mechanism of separating the funding of any post-market study from the conduct of the trial. What I'm suggesting is that the company that has committed to undertake the trial give the money to do that trial to CIHR. CIHR would then select the researchers, who would design and undertake the trial; those researchers would analyze the results of the trial independent of the company, and the results of the trials would be made public.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

[Prof. Janice E. Graham]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to your study of Bill C-17

I'm going to focus today on why I think amendments to the bill are needed to address openness and transparency of clinical trials data and the decisions surrounding the approval of drugs by Health Canada.

I became interested in the transparency of safety and efficacy data almost 20 years ago while working as a research fellow on a phase four clinical trial. The manufacturer who sponsored our study selected the positive results from our database, ignoring the not-so-positive cases in order to argue for inclusion of that drug into the provincial formulary. I was appalled at the manipulation and wondered how mediocre drugs get approved in the first place given their cost to our health care system.

Between 2001 and 2006, I conducted extensive anthropological research at Health Canada's regulatory authorities. I was observing drug evaluations, regulatory activities, and decision-making. Also, I participated in progressive licensing consultations with Health Canada and I chaired their expert advisory committee on the special access program.

Concerns and recommendations that our committee made in 2008 about the role and fit of regulatory modernization were never made public and several apply to the recommendations for Bill C-17.

In 2004, Health Canada received the Code of Silence award from the Canadian Association of Journalists as the most secretive government department for denying access to drug databases that could harm or kill Canadians. The CAJ charged that commercial interests trumped Canadians' health. Regulatory capture, a term that gets used by all sides to accuse a regulatory authority of favouring the interests of one stakeholder over another, can happen in any sector. It's non-partisan.

The ability of Health Canada's regulatory evaluators and independent reviewers to do their job is challenged when assessing partial and incomplete data. I do not wish to criticize the dedicated work carried on by Health Canada's regulators. They work under considerable structural and financial constraints. Hiring just a few more evaluators in 2004 and 2005—while I was doing my research there—enabled the directorates to move out of years of backlog.

Improvements in recent years have made Health Canada's activities and reports more readily accessible. But these still remain weak instruments, lacking important details about the research design and methodologies, data, critical appraisal, and the assessment that would ensure unbiased results and analyses. While Health Canada's reviewers use many mechanisms to arrive at their decisions, including bilateral consultations with the sponsor and ongoing clarification of their questioning during reviews, I suggested there remains an essential role for independent appraisal that requires open access to the clinical trial data and to Health Canada's decision-making.

As a case in point, Health Canada's assessment of the stem cell therapy Prochymal left more questions than answers. In 2012, Canada became the first country to conditionally approve Prochymal for the treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease in children. Approval was based on very encouraging data showing clinically meaningful responses provided by the sponsor. The U.S. FDA wasn't convinced though and denied approval of that drug. The manufacturer, Osiris, planned to use Prochymal for the treatment of many other diseases, opening the door to multiple off-licence indications.

The fact that the panel recommended a warning for the product monograph to say, “The long term effects of Prochymal® in growing children are unknown“ would, I hope, have alerted the marketed health products directorate to a ticking time bomb.

Based on limited and unpublished clinical trial data, Canada's decision to approve Prochymal was lauded as a huge achievement by the financial and drug development communities. Canada was seen to be signaling a shift, that they were open to industry for faster access, more than for the safe drugs that Canadians need as promised in the 2003 throne speech.

Health Canada's summary basis of decision-making for Prochymal presented a confused picture of the criteria and proceedings that allowed its approval. Data from two unpublished studies were used to arrive at the decision, and one didn't even meet statistical significance for the critical end point. I quote from the summary basis of decision-making:

To date, only preliminary evidence exists to indicate a potential therapeutic value for Prochymal; however, so far, Prochymal has not exhibited worrisome toxicity and has shown a relatively benign safety profile.

I submit to you that so does a placebo and the evidence was that this trial was based on only 28 days of clinical research.

HPFB's own consultations say that the summary basis of decision documents do “not contain enough detailed information about clinical trials including study participants, results and harms to truly allow consumers and health care providers to make informed choices.”

In a business article titled “How to Tell When a Drug Company Fibs About Clinical Trial Results”, Adam Feuerstein wrote:

Osiris Therapeutics “disappeared” important data when the company announced results...from a mid-stage study of its stem cell therapy Prochymal in heart attack patients.

Regulation works well when it takes nothing for granted and has multiple, iterative mechanisms to control for potential gaps. The good regulator wears both a belt and suspenders. I don't think any of us wants Canadian regulators caught with their pants down. I cannot afford a ticking time bomb—none of us can. Bill C-17 does not go far enough in ensuring independent, systematic review of all clinical trial data. Steps to ensure access to clarifications and consultations between industry sponsors and regulators, and the details in rationale for drug approval, approval with conditions, refusal, and suspended or recalled drugs, are not included in the present draft of Bill C-17. Neither is budgetary commitment to provide the resources for the enhanced regulatory activities that modernization will need to meet obligations to Canadians for the safety and efficacy of therapeutic health products. Without budgetary commitment to carry out these extra activities, provisions in the act will be futile.

Regulatory modernization has swept across nations. It's intended to keep pace with our political neighbours in terms of policy, economy, and science and technology, but it can also be an opportunity for clinical trialists and regulators to adopt new, more robust methodologies. While Bill C-17 will enhance the recall powers of the health minister, it puts no emphasis on enhancing the capacity and capability of Health Canada with the precautionary buffer of independent review and access to decision-making.

Instead, regulatory modernization has pushed for post-market surveillance and follow-up for conditionally approved drugs, many of which should be stopped at the gate. With quicker access to these drugs, Canadians risk becoming phase four clinical trial guinea pigs who are not protected by the careful controls in traditional phase one, two, and three clinical trials.

Without the benefits of independent, open and transparent access to clinical trial results, the authorization and approval of the use of medications remain an ethically unjustifiable black box. Bill C-17 will serve all Canadians better if it can address this gap. As the journal Nature points out:

Greater openness about clinical-trial data should help to speed up drug development, provide independent assessments of drug safety and efficacy and increase trust in industry science.

It's a win-win for us all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're continuing our study on Bill C-17. We have a number of witnesses today, so we might as well get right at it.

First of off, we'll start with our guest who's on teleconference this morning.

Ms. Graham, can you hear us okay?

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.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being with us today.

Minister, I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn from your earlier remarks that it's been nearly 50 years since patient safety legislation has been significantly updated. This seems to be a worldwide phenomenon that there are great gaps in the information on safety and effectiveness of drugs used in real-world settings. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals when used by the diverse patient populations, and outside the controlled, experimental environment of clinical trials.

I was wondering if you would be able to elaborate for the committee on how Health Canada currently undertakes post-market surveillance activities. What kind of improvements are here in Bill C-17, in Vanessa's law?

[Anne Lamar]

In reference to the AG report from 2011, obviously, Health Canada took those recommendations very seriously. We've completed, actually, the majority of the action items that were recommended. We can certainly provide more follow-up details to the committee on that.

I think that what is being proposed in Bill C-17 is actually completely in line with the OAG report. In fact, we have already started, as the minister alluded to, to move some of our priorities, change the way we are doing our business. I referred to some of the efficiencies that we find around electronic reporting, with large IT systems that help us to manage that information.

You also referenced a time lag in terms of information coming in and being able to provide a signal assessment. Again, that will be enabled and be even stronger with new systems. I think as well with the fact that we won't need to be negotiating on some of the authorities like recall, for example, where it does take more time for us to get information out to the public, we will see ourselves saving time in that regard. Our capacity to communicate, to take that information and communicate it externally to Canadians, to pharmacists, to practitioners who need it, I think will clearly be enabled.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

When Vanessa's law was introduced, I did have high hopes for its quick passage, given the support that it received by all parties in the Commons. I know you yourself said that it was a step in the right direction. I also received correspondence from several members, from all parties, who believe that this is a very important bill and urged me to secure passage of Bill C-17, which is Vanessa's law, as quickly as possible.

We did work in that direction. I will simply say that sometimes the work we do is caught up by.... The House leaders do the work that they do. I will just say at this point that, yes, there were exchanges between House leaders as to when this bill should move forward. I'll just leave it at the fact that I'm glad that we have now seen the bill unanimously supported by all parties to move to committee. I'm glad to see that happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome and thank you for coming to the committee meeting this morning.

We're studying Bill C-17. We have the minister and officials with us. The minister will be with us for the first hour and then we'll continue on with the officials. If we have 15 minutes for committee business at the end, we'll do that.

Welcome, Minister. Welcome, officials. We'll allow you to start. You have 10 minutes or thereabouts for your opening remarks and then we'll go into our rounds of questions.

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 this 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, 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 the 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.