House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nuclear.

Topics

Security and Prosperity Partnership
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have three separate petitions on three different subjects, and I will be very brief.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians from all across the country.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to suspend the security and prosperity partnership or continental integration strategy currently ongoing. They point out that the SPP encompasses over 300 wide-ranging initiatives but yet is going on without the scrutiny, oversight or even mandate from any of the people of Canada, the United States or Mexico.

Security and Prosperity Partnership
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The 15 minutes for presenting petitions have expired. That is why I urged the hon. member to brief. He can do them, but he will have to be very quick.

Federal Minimum Wage
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

I see, Mr. Speaker. I will be quick.

The second petition, put forward by hundreds of Canadians and regarding the federal minimum wage, calls upon the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the workers in the federal jurisdiction are paid a fair minimum wage by passing the NDP private member's bill, Bill C-375, which would establish a federal minimum wage and set it at $10 an hour.

Rail Transportation Safety
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have to present is regarding rail transportation safety.

The petitioners point out that CN Rail's trains traverse Canada with dangerous commodities, that Transport Canada concluded an audit of CN's safety management system, but the audit has never been made public. Therefore, these many Canadians are calling upon Parliament to make public the contents of Transport Canada's audit of CN's safety management system.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

June 19th, 2008 / 3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 267.

Question No. 267
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington Western Arctic, NT

With regard to the world-class arctic research station mentioned in the Speech from the Throne opening the Second Session of the 39th Parliament: (a) what is the anticipated cost; (b) which Northern communities are being considered for the location of the station; (c) when will the final selection be made for the location; (d) when will the station be included in the government's budget plans; (e) what types of scientific research will be supported by the station; and (f) will the station be part of existing arctic scientific research facilities such as the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik, Northwest Territories?

Question No. 267
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon
B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s world-class Arctic research station, part of our government’s northern strategy, will help position our country as the global leader in Arctic science research. We are committed to ensure that northerners will be involved in and benefit from this important project.

Planning for the station is now in preliminary stages, including consultations and analysis of possible options for infrastructure and logistics, a science program, governance and location. The design and development of the station will be driven by the science priorities for Canada.

In response to a) An estimated cost for the station cannot be identified until more analysis is done regarding the infrastructure and logistics, science program, governance and location.

In response to b) A site location for the research station has not yet been determined. We are presently undertaking operational research to analyze location options.

In response to c) We hope that analysis and discussion with key stakeholders will yield a location recommendation in the coming months.

In response to d) The development of an Arctic research station is a multi-year initiative, as is the case with any large infrastructure project, but we hope to undertake initial feasibility studies over the next year which will also then help with future financial estimates and planning.

In response to e) A process has been launched to define Canada’s global advantage in Arctic science. The results of this process will provide key information for the Arctic science priorities in Canada and the science and technology program for the station. As part of this process, we recently convened a workshop with representatives from federal and territorial governments, universities, colleges, northern and aboriginal organizations and industry to discuss Arctic science priorities for Canada. The discussion considered varied scientific activities and disciplines including natural, physical, social and health sciences. The next step in this process is an international validation of Canada’s priorities for Arctic science.

In response to f) Analysis is underway now to provide options for an optimal model and governance structure for the station. This analysis includes consideration of the existing capacity for Arctic scientific research in Canada.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 265 and 277 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 265
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

With regard to government involvement with the Evergreen Light Rail Transit Project: (a) what funds have been committed to the project; (b) what are the expected costs to the government; (c) which department is responsible; (d) what is the expected timeline; (e) what is the amount of money that will be approved in grants; (f) what amount will be in loans; (g) what consultations have been carried out with (i) the government of British Columbia, (ii) municipal governments, (iii) local residents, (iv) local businesses, (v) local post-secondary institutions; (h) what construction techniques have been committed to the project; (i) what is the expected length of track that is being built; (j) what environmental impact studies have been either commissioned or reviewed; (k) how will merchants along the Evergreen line be compensated for disruption to their businesses; (l) what research is the government using for estimates of ridership along the line; (m) what will be the revenue source if ridership numbers are below those expected; (n) will construction of the line be constructed at grade or below through Port Moody; (o) what efforts have been made to enhance security at stations; (p) will the line be fully integrated with the existing system allowing for continuous travel from Port Moody to Commercial Drive; (q) what efforts have been made to ensure that environmentally sensitive lands, such as Miller Park Ravine are protected; (r) what negotiations have taken place with Canadian Pacific Railway Limited; (s) is the government considering using a P3 model for the project; and (t) does the government have any plans with regard to foreign workers and the project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 277
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra St. Catharines, ON

With regard to the tax reductions introduced by the government since the beginning of 2006, how much less in taxes could a retired couple over the age of 65 with combined income of $40,200 (with one spouse having a private pension income of $23,000, $11,490 in income from Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security (OAS) payments, and the other spouse having an income of $5,710 in OAS payments) save as a result of: (a) the introduction of pension income splitting; (b) the increase in the age credit; (c) the increase in the pension income credit; (d) the reduction in the goods and services tax; (e) the increase in the basic personal exemption; (f) the reduction of personal income tax rates; (g) the increase in the refundable medical expense supplement, if eligible expenses are $2,000; (h) the introduction of the public transit tax credit, if the cost of a monthly pass is $42; (i) the increase in the maximum amount eligible for the spouse or common-law partner credit; and (j) the Tax-Free Savings Account?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

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