House of Commons Hansard #150 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was safety.

Topics

TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, twice in the last three years, Transport Canada said it was creating a federal inventory of derelict vessels, but the government does not define what a derelict vessel is or give any indication it will deal with the growing problem of abandoned boats, barges, and other water craft

The Union of B.C. Municipalities made a suggestion to set up a removal program and designate the Canadian Coast Guard as receiver of wrecks and derelicts.

When will the minister respond to the calls for concrete action on derelict vessels?

TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that Transport Canada provides for safe waterways free from ship-source pollution. With respect to vessels, the consideration is whether navigation is obstructed.

The member will also know that it is the owner of a vessel who is responsible for its removal, including removing the vessel if it becomes stranded. Should it become an obstruction to navigation, then the responsible departments of the government will act decisively.

Public SafetyOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House debated the common sense firearms licensing act. These measures, introduced by our Conservative government, represent the first change to improve the firearms licence system in nearly 20 years and are welcomed by law-abiding Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Yesterday, the Liberal leader said he was opposed to these common-sense measures. Later, he put out a misleading fundraising campaign wherein he claimed that this bill would allow restricted firearms to be brought to shopping malls.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell us what this bill would actually do?

Public SafetyOral Questions

3 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This bill keeps all the safety rules regarding the transportation of restricted firearms. However, that is not what the Liberals have said. Whether the Liberal leader has intentionally misled the House and Canadians or has not read the bill, he should apologize, tell the truth and say that this bill, while increasing public safety, is respecting law-abiding citizens.

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the people of Lachine, Saint-Pierre, Dorval and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce are worried.

With so many rail lines running through our neighbourhoods, people are concerned for their safety. The Transportation Safety Board's report released yesterday is once again critical of the Conservatives' inaction. That is not reassuring.

What is more, the Conservatives have been cutting funding for transportation safety from their budgets for the past five years. I want my constituents to feel safe.

Will the government stop playing games with their safety and finally compel the transportation companies to improve their safety measures?

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, that member was at committee today when officials testified that in fact, for example, the transport of dangerous goods directorate's budget is at $20 million, up from $13 million.

Clearly, we are making the right strategic investments to ensure that our oversight system is in hand. However, we have taken a number of other very important measures, everything from DOT-111s, removing the most offensive from the transport of crude oil, working on new standards for a new tanker design, information-sharing with municipalities, and additional safety measures for runaway trains. I could go on and on—

Rail TransportationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. member for Ahuntsic.

HousingOral Questions

3 p.m.

Independent

Maria Mourani Independent Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Social Development misled the House by suggesting that housing co-operatives will be able to provide long-term subsidies after their agreement expires. However, that is not the case.

What is more, according to the minister, funds were supposedly transferred to the provinces to maintain funding for affordable housing after the agreements expire. The housing co-operatives do not know what the minister is talking about.

Can she tell us how much money was transferred to save affordable, co-operative housing?

HousingOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures for that specific transfer with me now, but I would be pleased to provide the hon. member with the exact information.

That being said, our government has increased its investments in affordable social housing, particularly through a very effective program to help the homeless find housing. We will continue in that direction.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table documents in both official languages.

During question period, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that we have never asked questions about the Francophonie, when we asked two questions in that regard just two days ago.

I would like to table in the House copies of the two questions for the minister's review.

(On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

November 20, 2014—Second reading and reference to a legislative committee of S-1001, An Act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act—Hon. Laurie Hawn.

Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ActOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, not withstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-1001, an Act to amend the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed.

Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ActOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ActOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ActOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, deemed considered in committee of the whole and reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed)

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about the official opposition's priorities this week. As you know, a few days ago we exposed the fact that the Conservative government had taken back—or stolen—$1.1 billion from our veterans. That priority has been a focus of ours in the House. We are pleased to see the Conservatives taking a first step towards a resolution. As we know, the Conservatives have given back part of the money they had taken from veterans, and we will, of course, continue to stand up for our veterans. We strongly believe that Canada has a debt to our veterans and that they deserve better than what this government has done.

This week, we are defending those who are victims of thalidomide, who have effectively been left by both the government and a pharmaceutical company, and have lived through very difficult lives. We appreciate that the government is going to be supporting our push for compensation for those victims.

Those have been some of our priorities for this week. I would like to ask my colleague on the government side what the priorities will be for the government in the coming days.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the comments on our commitment to veterans made by all of my colleagues opposite are completely untrue, our commitment to our veterans in this country in terms of the level of funding we have given them has been unprecedented. Frankly, there has not been one nickel that we have clawed back from veterans. In fact, we have spent over $5 billion more on veterans since taking office than the previous government.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members, once again, on the eve of this year's Grey Cup, that the Saskatchewan Roughriders are the defending Grey Cup champions. They are known not only as Saskatchewan's team but also Canada's team. I ask all members to once again applaud the efforts of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, as they are the backbone of the CFL, our great football institution in this country. I see that my colleagues share my enthusiasm.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon on behalf of the government House leader to give the weekly business statement to my colleague opposite. This afternoon, we will continue with the NDP opposition day debate. Tomorrow, we will return to second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law.

On Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This bill is the final step toward completing the legislative portion of Canada's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. After question period, we will start the report stage of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, which was recently reported back from the public safety committee. This bill will ensure that our communities, and especially parents, will have a say before drug injection sites are opened.

On Tuesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2, which has been considered by the hardworking finance committee and several other committees this autumn. Bill C-43 would implement measures from this year's federal budget and other newer measures that would support jobs, economic growth, families, and communities, as well as improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system as the government returns to a balanced budget in 2015.

On Wednesday, we will have yet another NDP opposition day, as confirmed yesterday by the government House leader. That will be our last supply day of the autumn, so we will consider the supplementary estimates and an appropriations bill that evening.

Thursday will see us resume debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at third reading. My colleagues from the greater Toronto area will be keen to see progress on this legislation, which would create Canada's first urban national park.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

When the House last debated the question, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had four minutes remaining in the time for his remarks. After that he will have five minutes of questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Richmond Hill Ontario

Conservative

Costas Menegakis ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know that when they are prescribed a medication, it has been rigorously reviewed by one of the most exacting safety regulators in the world. They also want to know about any new facts as soon as possible after they emerge so they can continue to make informed decisions in discussion with their health care providers. That is why the new authority in Vanessa's Law regarding mandatory label changes is so important.

The thalidomide tragedy made us all aware that drugs are powerful chemical or biological substances and that while these can provide many benefits, they also have the potential to have unwanted side effects. Sometimes these side effects are serious enough to be life-threatening, permanently debilitating and, in rare, instances even fatal.

Health care institutions are uniquely positioned to identify and report these serious adverse reactions. Although most drugs are prescribed by a family doctor and used outside of a hospital setting, the most serious side effects result in patient hospitalization. As a result, adverse reaction reports serve as an important source of safety information. However, to date, adverse drug reactions have been under-reported.

That is why, with the new authorities provided in Vanessa's Law, Health Canada will be working with provinces to develop a system for health care institutions to report serious adverse drug reactions and medical incidents directly to the department and to ensure the department provides critical and timely feedback to health care providers about the adverse reaction reports it receives.

With the passage of Vanessa's Law, the minister will have new regulatory tools to draw upon when the possibility of an unforeseen serious risk has been identified. The minister can now order a label change or a recall. Once the relevant provisions are enforced, the minister will also be able to order new tests or studies on the product, ongoing monitoring of the product's use, or a thorough reassessment of existing evidence about the product.

It is also important to note that the minister has multiple ways of addressing a safety risk to the public that do not necessarily involve removing it from the market. It is important to keep in mind that any time a drug is pulled from the market, it can have significant consequences on patients who may rely on that drug to treat serious and debilitating conditions.

Vanessa's Law has introduced tougher measures for those who do not comply with the Food and Drugs Act. The maximum fine has been increased to $5 million and/or two years in prison. In addition, courts will have the discretion to impose even higher fines if they determine that a person has knowingly and recklessly endangered human health. This sends a strong message that marketing unsafe drugs in Canada is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, there are always a few who choose to engage in unethical behaviour. That is why the higher penalties that Vanessa's Law have introduced are vital.

The large number of changes recently introduced by this new legislation have the potential to greatly enhance patient safety in Canada and to demonstrate how our health system is continuously evolving to better protect Canadians and keep pace with scientific knowledge. They reflect our determination as parliamentarians to reduce the risk of tragic events of the early 1960s ever occurring again.

We have learned from the experience of thalidomide and we are pleased to support the motion before the House today.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. We had a great discussion and debate today on the issue of thalidomide. One of the things we need to focus more attention on is the fact that it is more than just the cash and the one-time settlement; it is the continual care that needs to be provided in Canada through our provincial jurisdictions. Whether it is the health departments and in some situations the family services department, they all need to be sensitive to the needs of the individuals who require the additional support.

Would the member pick up on the point that we have provincial stakeholders that need to be brought into the discussion to ensure that the type of support is consistent no matter where individuals who were victims of thalidomide back in the 1960s live? We have to ensure comprehensive and compatible services are being delivered to all clients.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice, as I said earlier today, to the fact that the House is united on this very important issue. It is an excellent example of how we can come together when we have a cause about which we all feel so passionately.

To respond to the member's question, we all know that this tragic event of the 1960s should not happen again, and we should work together in collaboration with our friends, partners and provinces in this effort.

Certainly, reviewing the proposal put forward by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada is very important for us, and the Minister of Health will be meeting with the association as well very shortly.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was back in the 1990s, under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, that the Conservative government required thalidomide survivors to sign an indemnity form giving up their right to sue in exchange for accepting a small, one-time payment that did not even begin to cover the expenses of a lifetime disability. We see the impact of that decision today, where so many of these survivors are struggling and are facing a bleak future without significant additional assistance.

Does the member opposite agree that Canada has a moral obligation to provide compensation for the thalidomide survivors?

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her interest and passion in wanting to see some important relief for folks who have unfortunately been affected by ingesting thalidomide so many years ago.

Health Canada has learned from this tragedy, as we all have. Important improvements have been made to reduce the risk of this kind of terrible event from occurring again, including an overhaul of Canada's drug regulatory framework.

The new law we put in, Bill C-17, Vanessa's Law, certainly has strengthened our regulatory tools to ensure that something such as the thalidomide tragedy never occurs again in our country.

Opposition Motion—Survivors of ThalidomideBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the motion.

There are three pieces to the motion, but the important point of the motion is to protect and respect the rights and dignity of people, and ensure they can live the next number of decades with support and respect.

There is obviously a financial component to the support, but there is also the emotional component as well as support throughout the disabled communities.

I was not around in the fifties of sixties, but we see how technology has changed through the years. There is a wealth of information for young mothers and young families today. Before an individual is even thinking of having a child, there is a wealth of information available. There are unlimited books, but there are obviously online resources available today outlining what individuals should do and not do, what they should take and not take. These resources were not as readily available decades ago, certainly not in the late fifties and early sixties, and it is truly unfortunate they were not.

Young couples in the late fifties, early sixties, thinking about starting families would listen to their families, their family doctors and take their advice. For an expectant mother having morning sickness or trouble sleeping, the doctor would have prescribed thalidomide to try to alleviate the symptoms so being pregnant would be a little more tolerable. That expectant mother would have taken the doctor's advice, which would have been based on the evidence that doctor had at the time to try to alleviate the symptoms of the expectant mother.

These families put their trust in the system over 50 years ago. Unfortunately for over 100 families in our country and thousands around the world, there were some pretty serious consequences. In some cases, the families faced these consequences their entire life.

Victims of thalidomide are now in their fifties and have faced a lifetime of making adjustments. They have spent a lifetime trying to compensate for their disabilities and continue on with their lives.

The Thalidomide Survivors Association of Canada did a study a few years ago. One was commissioned in 2011 and one in 1998. One of the remarkable pieces of the study was how many victims of thalidomide were motivated to have as normal a life as they could in Canada. The rate of employment among these individuals was around 73% in 1998.

However, as I said, I am sure thalidomide victims spent their entire lives trying to compensate for their disabilities and have had to overuse parts of their bodies that an average person would not have to use. Now that they are in their fifties, they are faced with a lot of pain. This report identifies the pain in all the different joints that victims of thalidomide experience.

When the motion talks about support, this is one of the components we need to recognize. The reports that came forward from the study in 2011 also indicated that the employment rate among thalidomide victims was in decline, so we need to recognize that when we talk about support. In addition, we also need to recognize the fact that these people are in physical pain. The report notes this. We can just imagine the rigour they have gone through to have a normal life.

Obviously there are a lot of extra costs associated with being disabled and trying to have a normal life, which a person such as myself may not experience, such as a device to reach something, a device to shower or a device to operate a vehicle. These all cost extra dollars and that needs to be recognized.

When we talk about respect and dignity and allowing people to lead dignified lives, not only in their younger years, but as they age into their fifties, sixties and seventies, that is also what this motion is about. Parliamentarians and Canadians support this.

Another component that is worth mentioning is timeframes. This product was on the West German market in the late 1950s, and went off the market in 1961. In Canada, it was a different story. It was not off the market until late 1962, so there was a bit of a timeframe there. That leads to the next point that I would like to talk about, which is the regulatory monitoring and recall, all the components that are the responsibility of Health Canada.

After this event, Health Canada swept through with changes that would revolutionize Canada and allow it to become one of the leading countries in areas such as this. However, the point of Health Canada's mandate is looking at the regulation and efficacy of drugs, monitoring and recall, all the issues involved in that. It could not just be changed in 1962, 1963, or 1964, and then be forgotten for 100 years; it needed to be continually looked at, changed, and monitored.

That is why I was so proud in November when a bill put forward by my colleague from Oakville, which he had spent many years of his life working on, received royal assent. On November 5, the member for Oakville saw Vanessa's law come into effect.

Aside from components such as monitoring, recall, adverse reactions, fines, and jail times for pharmaceutical companies that fail to do their jobs in performing due diligence, another component is the reporting of adverse reactions. We know that very few adverse reactions are actually reported. It is under 15%. Vanessa's law will ensure that adverse reactions are reported, so that Canadians will know and Health Canada will have a better understanding.

Frances Oldham Kelsey has been in the news recently. She worked with the FDA in the 1960s, and many years prior to that. Her comment was that there was not enough data or research to allow the product to enter the market in the United States. That was one of the failings of almost 50 of the other countries around the world that allowed this product into the market. She is a hero. This may not have been reported in the news, but there were samples distributed throughout the United States. Therefore, in spite of what she was able to accomplish, pharmaceutical companies were still able to give samples to doctors to give to their patients, young mothers.

The motion is timely. People watching at home and members of Parliament recognize that this is a great debate. This is one where all parliamentarians can have a good debate, in a very collegial manner, to benefit the Canadians who have had a lot of tough times in their lives. If we take a look at this report, we can see that they have worked very hard and tried very hard throughout their lives. We should all be proud of them for what they have been able to achieve, considering the options they had starting out.

I am very happy to speak about this today. I thank the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada for continuing to push forward for these people, to bring it to the forefront and get it to the House of Commons for debate, so we can continue to support these people in any way that we can.