House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was refugees.

Topics

Financial Institutions
Oral Questions

Noon

Bloc

André Bellavance Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, not content to rebuff the Government of Quebec again and again on matters such as the reduction of Quebec's weight in the House of Commons, the firearms registry, health transfers, the administration of justice and Senate reform, the Conservative government is opening a new front, this time with regard to banking services.

Why is the Minister of Finance trying so hard to protect banks by infringing on Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection?

Financial Institutions
Oral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the hon. member that, in the past year, our government settled a matter with the Government of Quebec that has been dragging on for over 15 years: the harmonization of the GST and QST. That is a great success.

We announced a new bridge over the St. Lawrence only 140 days after taking office, something that all the other parties had disregarded for years. We are going to continue to work. Not a week goes by that I do not speak with two or three ministers from the Quebec government to advance their causes. We can talk about an isolated case, but our government is a good partner to the Quebec government and we are going to continue to be.

Financial Institutions
Oral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister made me laugh when he spoke about an isolated case. I gave him more than one example.

Since I have only 35 seconds, I do not have time to list all the other disputes that are going on right now between Quebec City and Ottawa. If he would read the letter that the Minister of Finance sent to the Government of Quebec about banking services, he would understand a lot better.

Clearly, the government did not learn anything from its failure on the Canada-wide securities issue. Yet, the Government of Quebec has been clear: it is unacceptable for the Government of Canada to unilaterally decide that provincial laws do not apply to banks.

Why does the minister want to leave Quebec consumers at the mercy of large banks? What does he stand to gain?

Financial Institutions
Oral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Québec

Conservative

Denis Lebel Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, people are not at all at the mercy of large banks. Rather, Canada has the soundest banking system in the world. Our country is doing better than any of the industrialized countries because our financial system is very sound. Of course we will respect the provinces. We respect the ruling given by the Supreme Court in this regard. In our opinion, what is important here is the entire country's economy. We would not have been able to create 750,000 jobs since July 2009 if we were not making good decisions. Of course we are going to continue to work well and co-operate with the Government of Quebec.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Charlene Johnson, Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

National Defence
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to section 96 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, C35, to table before the House, in both official languages, the second independent review by the Hon. Patrick J. LeSage, CM, OOnt, QC, of the provisions and operations of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, a second document entitled, “Comments of the Minister of National Defence on the Report of the Second Independent Review Authority regarding Bills C-25 and C-60”.

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Health
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled, “Drug Supply in Canada: A Multi-Stakeholder Responsibility”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Fisheries and Oceans
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that more than 400 Quebeckers have signed this petition from the Fédération québécoise pour le saumon atlantique, against the changes to the Fisheries Act, and in particular against the elimination of section 35, which protects fish habitats.

Since the depletion of fish stocks in the 1990s, people in the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands are very aware of the fact that we must protect all elements of the ecosystem to achieve sustainable development.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 609 will be answered today.

Question No. 609
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

With respect to drug regulation and approval: (a) does the 2012 Economic Action Plan provide for decreases or increases in the financial and human resources allocated to (i) drug approval services, (ii) regulatory activities to evaluate and monitor the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs before and after they enter the marketplace, (iii) activities related to the review of submissions by drug manufacturers for market authorization and post-market changes, (iv) activities related to enforcing compliance with existing regulations, including those concerning clinical trials, drug manufacturing and the reporting of adverse drug reactions, (v) activities of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, (vi) services such as the Patent Register, Drug Product Database, Notice of Compliance, and Progressive Licensing Project, (vii) various areas of Health Canada such as the Marketed Health Products Directorate, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, and the Veterinary Drugs Directorate; (b) for each of the programs and directorates listed in (a), (i) what is the estimated extent of the decreases or increases in human or financial resources, (ii) are positions expected to be cut and, if so, how many will be eliminated; (c) was a value-for-money assessment conducted for the drug approval process; and (d) what is the government’s financial allocation plan regarding drug regulation?

Question No. 609
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Nunavut
Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 economic action plan proposes changes that will give Canadians quicker access to drugs that have gone through Health Canada's rigorous scientific drug review process. This new proposed approach will not impact the safety and efficacy of drugs in Canada. All drug submissions to Health Canada will continue to be subject to rigorous safety, efficacy, and quality assessments prior to approval.

With respect to the questions (a) to (d) above, and subject to parliamentary approval of any required legislation, with regard to (a)(i), (a)(ii), (a)(iii) and (a)(iv) there will be no impact.

With regard to (a)(v), for the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board, PMPRB, there are no changes planned for the price review process. By 2014-15, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s financial resources and human resources will have been decreased, as explained below.

First, the special purpose allotment to be used for external costs of public hearings will be reduced by $630,000 from a budget of $3.1 million. To date the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has not used the full amount in any given year. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year are returned to the consolidated revenue fund. The reduction of $630,000 will not limit the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board’s ability to conduct hearings.

Second, funding of studies on non-patented prescription drug prices will be reduced by $374,000, including three positions. This may not necessarily result in layoffs of employees, owing to potential vacancies and internal budget re-allocations. The PMPRB will retain capacity to undertake research, including on non-patented prescription drug prices if required, through the national prescription drug utilization system program.

With regard to (a)(vi), patent register, drug product database, notice of compliance and the progressive licensing project will not be impacted.

With regard to (a)(vii), the therapeutic products directorate will be impacted, as described below in the responses to (b)(i) and (b)(ii).

With regard to (b)(i), the proposed removal of the requirement for a regulatory amendment to schedule F and maintaining the list of prescription drugs administratively would result in the following decreases in financial resources: $32,000 for 2012-13; $270,700 for 2013-14; and $388,400 for 2014-15 and ongoing.

With regard to (b)(ii), there will be a reduction of four positions in the therapeutic products directorate from 2013-14 and ongoing.

With regard to (c), there was no value-for-money assessment conducted for the drug approval process as there were no reductions in this area.

With regard to (d), as per the above, the 2012 economic action plan had no direct impact on drug regulation, with the exception of proposed changes to the Food and Drugs Act for schedule F.

With respect to the government's financial allocation plan regarding drug regulation, Health Canada updated its cost recovery fees for drug review and approval of drugs in April 2011. These fees were increased to reflect rising costs and will increase annually by 2% to help ensure that sufficient resources are available to support these activities.

Revenues from revised fees will provide stable, long-term funding for Health Canada's core regulatory activities, including efficient drug product reviews, enhanced drug safety monitoring and inspections. Revenues have also been invested in hiring new scientific experts, replacing antiquated IT systems and improving business processes and systems.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

June 8th, 2012 / 12:10 p.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. 613, 616 and 619 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?