House of Commons Hansard #68 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drug.

Topics

Procedure and House Affairs.
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House Affairs.
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Library Materials
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Merv Tweed Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions from people in Ontario and Alberta. These petitions add to the many petitions that I have presented before in support of Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials) that would protect and support the library book rate and extend it to include audiovisual materials.

Falun Gong Practitioners
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 80 people from greater Vancouver, including some from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, who are very concerned about the arrest of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners by security agencies of the People's Republic of China.

They are particularly concerned about the detention of Shuming Gao and Qinming Gao, whose sister, Xiaoming Gao, lives in Vancouver.

The petitioners call on the Canadian government to make a clear statement on the human rights violations and persecution perpetrated against Falun Gong practitioners in China.

Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, each year firefighters from across Canada come to Parliament Hill to advise us on some of their priorities. The first priority for the last number of years has been the issue of compensation for families where one firefighter or other public safety officer has lost his or her life in the line of duty.

This petition has been forwarded to me by Captain Mark Train from the Mississauga fire services. He and the petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis and that the employment benefits of public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed on duty.

The petitioners point out that the public also mourns the loss of a police officers, firefighters or other public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way their surviving families in their time of need. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

June 4th, 2009 / 10:10 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 121, 134 and 140.

Question No. 121
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

With regard to projects funded in whole or in part by Treasury Board Vote 35 in the Main Estimates 2009-2010: (a) what appropriations have been created or supplemented with funds from Vote 35; (b) what is the name of each project which has received funding from Vote 35; (c) what is the amount of total federal funding, including funds other than money from Vote 35, for each project; (d) how much of the federal funding was provided directly by Vote 35 for each project; (e) which federal department and program is the funding being provided to; and (f) what was the rationale for using Vote 35 to fund this project as opposed to other funds available to the government under other authorities?

Question No. 121
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, with respect to funding provided from Treasury Board vote 35:

In regard to a) and e) A list of departments, the appropriations supplemented, and the budget program that is being funded from vote 35 is provided in supplementary estimates A, pages 77-82.

In regard to b), c), and d) Allocations from vote 35 are allocated to departmental programs, not to specific projects. As such, information on specific projects is not available. Treasury Board approves departmental programs, and individual department or agency determines which projects to pursue. The administrative responsibility for the execution of spending on any particular projects falls under an individual department or agency.

In regard to f) The use of vote 35 supports timely implementation of budget 2009 initiatives by enabling Treasury Board ministers to allocate funds to departments for Budget commitments where there is a cash flow requirement before the next supply period.

The decision to report on the allocation of vote 35 funds in quarterly reports to Parliament on the economic action plan was presented in the House of Commons and formally passed by Parliament on February 2, 2009. As well, the government has committed to provide a summary of vote 35 allocations in supplementary estimates, the most recent of which were tabled in Parliament on May 14, 2009. An updated list of approved allocations from vote 35 to departments will be tabled in Parliament in the June quarterly budget report.

The economic action plan website, http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/index.asp, provides information about specific initiatives and projects as they are announced.

Question No. 134
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Yukon, YT

With respect to the Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute, since 2006: (a) what steps have been taken to resolve the Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute; (b) what discussions have been held involving the governments of Canada and the United States; (c) where were these discussions held; (d) who was involved in these discussions; (e) what departments or agencies from both governments were represented at these discussions; (f) what were the outcomes of the discussions; (g) who has been involved and who has been consulted in the efforts to develop Canada’s position in these negotiations; (h) what is Canada’s position; (i) when does the government anticipate a resolution in this dispute; and (j) has the government placed a high level of importance to this issue in its relations with the United States?

Question No. 134
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Pontiac
Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, there is no existing Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute. However, a very well managed disagreement exists between the United States and Canada regarding the maritime delimitation of part of the Beaufort Sea.

In regard to a) Since 2006, no formal steps have been taken to resolve this issue as it is well managed and neither Canada nor the United States have found formal discussions to be warranted.

In regard to b) Since 2006, no formal discussions between the governments of the United States and Canada have been held regarding resolution of the Beaufort Sea maritime boundary, as neither Canada nor the US have found it warranted. As recently as May 23, 2009, at the Seward Conference in Alaska, the US Ambassador for Oceans and Fisheries, who is also responsible for Arctic issues, described the situation in the Beaufort Sea as a well managed dispute. Canada is working cooperatively with the US in the Beaufort Sea.

In regard to c) – f) There have been no formal discussions as this issue is well managed and neither Canada nor the United States has found formal discussions to be warranted.

In regard to g) There have been no negotiations as this issue is well managed and neither Canada nor the United States has found formal discussions to be warranted.

In regard to h) Canada’s consistent and long-held position is that the 141st meridian is the proper boundary between Canada and the US in the Beaufort Sea, based on the 1825 Anglo-Russian Treaty of St. Petersburg.

In regard to i) This matter will be resolved when Canada and the United States deem it necessary to resolve it, as this matter is very well managed.

In regard to j) Canada continues to exercise its sovereignty in the Arctic. Canada and the United States consistently cooperate on Arctic issues, for example, Canada and the US are implementing an ecosystem based approach to oceans management in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere. In addition, we are cooperating in the scientific work to delineate the extended continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea.

Question No. 140
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett St. Paul's, ON

With respect to rare diseases and disorders: (a) what has the government done to work with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to carry out the recommendations in the 2007 Common Drug Review and work with its provincial and territorial Common Drug Review counterparts to establish a specifically designed approach for the review of drugs for rare disorders and for first-in-class drugs; (b) what is the government doing to follow up on the commitment to a national program for drugs and patients with rare disorders resulting from the 2005 pledge by the Minister of Health to consider the creation of an Expensive Drugs for Rare Disorders Program, and after the Health Council of Canada called for the government to re-engage on a national program for expensive drugs with rare diseases; and (c) what has the government done with regards to the recommendations contained in motion M-426 (rare diseases and disorders), which was passed during the 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament?

Question No. 140
Questions on the Order paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Nunavut
Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, in regard to a) As stated in the government response to the committee's report, response tabled in the House of Commons on April 8, 2008, “the Government of Canada supports the idea of exploring options to increase the adaptability of the [Common Drug Review (CDR)] for all types of drugs, including drugs used to treat special populations such as those suffering from rare diseases. [...] The Government of Canada is interested in pursuing discussions with CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), participating provincial and territorial governments, and other stakeholders, on suitable approaches to assessing drugs to treat rare diseases.”

The federal government continues to discuss issues related to the CDR with provincial and territorial partners via participation on the CADTH Board of Directors, composed of representatives from participating provinces and territories as well as the federal government, and the CADTH’s Advisory Committee on Pharmaceuticals, composed of representatives from federal, provincial and territorial publicly funded drug plans, and health-related organizations. Through these activities, the federal government works to ensure the CDR continues to make a valuable contribution to the healthcare system, and that its process works well for all drugs, including those for rare diseases.

In regard to b) Under the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy, NPS, the federal government pursued work with provincial and territorial partners to develop a Canadian approach to expensive drugs for rare diseases. However, since the 2006 NPS progress report, collaborative work on a federal, provincial, and territorial approach has stalled, as the provinces and territories chose pursuit of new federal funding over meaningful collaboration on national approaches. In addition, some provinces, Alberta and Ontario, have moved forward with their own programs specifically designed for drugs for rare diseases.

The federal government remains interested in collaborative approaches to improve pharmaceuticals management. However, such work must respect jurisdictional roles and responsibilities. Prescription drugs provided outside of hospital are outside of the scope of the Canada Health Act and hence, provincial and territorial governments determine whether, and under what terms and conditions, to publicly finance prescription drugs, including drugs for rare diseases.

In regard to c) Initial analysis on Motion No. 426 was undertaken after it was adopted in May 2008 and before Parliament was dissolved. The government continues to consider the issue of drugs for rare diseases and the need, if any, for action in areas of federal responsibility. Further work in this area will require the active engagement of provinces and territories, who, as noted above, have primary responsibility for drug coverage.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 124, 125 and 139 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.