Debates of April 30th, 2010

Prison Farms

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by dozens of Winnipeggers. It calls on the government to stop the closure of the six Canadian prison farms, including the one at Rockwood Institution just outside Winnipeg, which I toured last week.

These prison farms have been functioning for many decades, providing food for prisons and the community. The prison farm operations provide rehabilitation and training for prisoners through working with and caring for plants and animals. The work ethic and rehabilitation benefits of waking up at six in the morning and working out of doors is a discipline Canadians can appreciate. Closing these farms would mean a loss of infrastructure and would make it too expensive to replace them in the future.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop the closure of the six Canadian prison farm operations across Canada. They want the government to produce a report on the work and rehabilitative benefits the farm operations provide to prisoners and on how the program could be adapted to meet the agricultural needs of the 21st century.

Access to Medicines Regime

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to table my very last petition in the House before I leave this place after 13 years. Actually, this will be the very last time that I will say anything on the official record of the House of Commons. I cannot think of a better issue around which to do this than on the matter raised by petitioners from my constituency and across Canada, particularly from the Canadian Grandmothers for Africa organization.

The petitioners call upon this House to follow through with the support that it gave Bill C-393, my private member's bill on the access to medicines regime, to ensure that more drugs flow at costing rates to Africa and other developing nations.

Members will know that this bill was supported by the House of Commons at second reading. It has gone to committee and the petitioners implore members of the House from all parties to see the process through, to discuss this matter at committee, to call witnesses, and to ensure that we change Canada's access to medicines regime to ensure that drugs flow to countries in need and to ensure that Canada lives up to its reputation as a leader in terms of humanitarian and compassionate issues around the world.

I thank all of those who have worked so hard on this issue, especially the grandmothers across Canada. I urge the House to help me leave this as a lasting legacy for all Canadians and the world.

Aboriginal Healing Foundation

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions that come from people across the country who are calling for the restoration of the funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

They say that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is aimed at encouraging and supporting aboriginal people in building and reinforcing sustainable healing practices that address the legacy of physical and sexual abuse in the residential schools system, including intergenerational impacts. They are asking the Government of Canada to leave a true legacy of action to residential schools survivors and support the process of healing through an extension of funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 149 will be answered today.

Question No. 149

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

With respect to energy drinks: (a) what is the status of legislation to ban the sale of these products to minors; (b) what regulations and penalties are being put in place to offer policing and consequences that deter aggressive marketing to teens and children; (c) will these drinks be moved from the natural health products category into a different category within Health Canada; (d) what is the status of creating more effective labels to increase public education about the effects of these products; and (e) what is the status of an education campaign concerning the potential adverse health effects of these products?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) Energy drinks are currently regulated as natural health products, NHPs, in Canada. To market NHPs in Canada, companies must first obtain the necessary product and site licences required under the Natural Health Products Regulations by submitting evidence demonstrating that their product is safe, effective and of high quality. The product must also carry detailed label information to allow consumers to make safe and informed choices. Only NHPs that are supported by adequate levels of evidence and carry appropriate labels are authorized for sale and issued a product licence. Health Canada does not regulate the place of sale, including age restrictions, for sale; only the provinces have that ability. Health Canada is responsible for assessing and authorizing natural health products prior to their sale in Canada to help assure that they are safe, effective, of high quality. All energy drinks licensed by Health Canada clearly state that they are not recommended for children.

With regard to b) If, after energy drink products are licensed by Health Canada, it is discovered that they are being sold or marketed in contravention of the conditions of sale outlined in the product licence or the Food and Drugs Act and the Natural Health Products Regulations, appropriate compliance action will be taken by the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate in accordance with the NHP compliance policy and the Health Product and Food Branch, HPFB, compliance and enforcement policy, POL-0001.

With regard to c) Currently, energy drinks are classified as natural health products because they meet the substance and function components of the NHP definition. Health Canada is continuing to monitor the use of energy drinks and will take appropriate measures to ensure the health and safety of Canadians. Part of this includes an assessment of new information provided to the Department, such as the reports of adverse events associated with the consumption of energy drinks and other scientific literature. Results of this assessment will inform the development of additional risk mitigation strategies which may include the development of additional cautionary statements on product labels with regard to who should not consume them and known adverse effects and a review of the most appropriate regulatory framework for these products.

With regard to d) Energy drinks currently approved for sale in Canada must contain the following dose and caution and warning statements: dose not to exceed 400 mg/day of caffeine; not recommended for caffeine-sensitive persons, children, pregnant or breastfeeding women; and, do not use with alcohol. Health Canada is developing a new labelling standard for all energy drinks sold in Canada. The new labelling standard will add certain risk statements and reword some existing ones for clarity. This standard will help ensure consumers understand the potential risks and the benefits of taking these products, and have the information they need to make an informed decision about their use.

With regard to e ) A communications package is being developed for the release of the new labelling standard. It will include an update to the “It’s Your Health on the Safety of Energy Drinks”, as well as an Information Update on the new labelling standard.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145 and 146 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 138

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

With regard to the government’s budgets: (a) what programs in the 2006 budget used less than 50% of their allocated funding and for each of these, (i) what is the total amount of funding they were allocated and how much did they use, (ii) which programs were cancelled or not reintroduced in the 2007 budget, (iii) which programs were continued in the 2007 budget, how much funding did they receive in the 2007 budget and how much did they use; (b) what programs in the 2007 budget used less than 50% of their allocated funding and for each of these, (i) what is the total amount of funding they were allocated and how much did they use, (ii) which programs were cancelled or not reintroduced in the 2008 budget, (iii) which programs were continued in the 2008 budget, how much funding did they receive in the 2008 budget and how much did they use; and (c) what programs in the 2008 budget used less than 50% of their allocated funding and for each of these, (i) what is the total amount of funding they were allocated and how much did they use, (ii) which programs were cancelled or not reintroduced in the 2009 budget, (iii) which programs were continued in the 2009 budget, and how much funding are they to receive?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 140

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

With regard to proposed stimulus spending for infrastructure and construction projects outlined in the government’s 2009 budget: (a) how much funding has been allocated for these projects; (b) what projects are currently known to be funded or have been proposed to receive funding; (c) where are these projects occurring; (d) how is the funding for these projects distributed; (e) how are the locations for these projects selected; and (f) what system determines the priority of these locations and projects?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 142

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With regard to the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance: (a) what process is in place for gender-based analysis on departmental policies in each department; (b) what measures are put in place to ensure gender-based analysis is done on legislation in each department; (c) if a policy or legislation does not achieve gender parity through a gender-based analysis, what measures, if any, are taken to ensure the policy or legislation is gender appropriate in each department; (d) what measures are taken to ensure gender parity in policies or legislation in each department; (e) are gender-based analyses on any policy or legislation conducted in each department and, if so, what is the content of those analyses; (f) how many staff are dedicated to do gender-based analysis in each department; (g) to whom do staff in (f) report in each department; and (h) what direction does each department give to staff on gender-based analysis?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 143

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With regard to violence against women and the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women, since 2006: (a) how many programs have been approved by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women to address this issue; (b) how much has been allocated to those projects; (c) what are the priorities of each project approved; (d) how many programs have been denied funding; (e) what is the total funding that would have gone to denied programs; (f) what were the parameters of each project that had been denied; (g) what were the reasons given for each project's denial; (h) what initiatives have been introduced government-wide addressing violence against women; (i) what specific bills have been introduced that address violence against women; (j) what departmental initiatives have been introduced by the Office of the Coordinator of the Status of Women to combat violence against women; (k) what specific bills have been introduced by the Department; (l) what gender-based analysis has been done on all government initiatives addressing violence against women; (m) what gender-based analysis has been done on all government bills concerning violence against women; and (n) what gender-based analysis has been done on all bills put forward by the Department of Justice?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 144

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With regard to the New Horizons for Seniors Program: (a) how many applications have been received from Manitoba in the last three proposal calls; (b) what organizations have received funding from the Program in Manitoba from the last three proposal calls; (c) how many weeks was the call for proposals available for all organizations; (d) what are the criteria for funding in each of the last three proposal calls; and (e) what is the rationale for any changes that have been made in the program criteria over the last three proposal calls?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 145

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

With regard to FedNor in 2007, 2008 and 2009: (a) how many funding applications were received by Industry Canada; (b) what were the top ten categories of funding requests; (c) how many funding applications were approved by Industry Canada; (d) what were the top ten categories of approved projects; and (e) what funding projects were approved, what were their value and in which federal constituency were they located?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 146

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

With regard to bids submitted for the contract for the Integrated Relocation Program of Public Works and Government Services Canada in the years 2002, 2004 and 2009: (a) how many bids were submitted by qualified bidders and under what names; and (b) how many bids were submitted by all bidders, qualified or otherwise, and under what names?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?