House of Commons Hansard #30 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Procedure and House Affairs
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Procedure and House Affairs
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Procedure and House Affairs
Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

(Motion agreed to)

Asbestos
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians from all across Canada. They call upon Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known. They further point out that Canada continues to be one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. The petitioners also want Parliament to take note that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial causes combined and yet Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ban asbestos in all its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities in which they live. They also call upon government to end all subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and finally, to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Fisheries and Oceans
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, in light of today's question period, this petition is germane to the debate concerning fisheries and oceans.

The petitioners are asking for the dismantling of a large part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. More important, the petitioners are calling for an inquiry into how the department goes about its business on the east, west and north coasts and inland waters.

The petitioners request a public inquiry into all aspects of DFO. They request that the current structure be dismantled and to put in place a model that takes into account fisheries science, with an emphasis on serving the fishermen who make a living from the industry.

In light of that situation, we recently heard that the government is coming forth with a model that does fisheries science management in a three-to five-year period, which the petitioners believe will be detrimental to science information as presented to the fishing industry in this country.

I hope the House will look upon this petition favourably.

The Environment
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday over 20,000 people were in attendance in Melancthon Township in my riding to oppose a mega quarry in Melancthon Township in Dufferin County. I received this petition from many of those people who are concerned that this mega quarry will put at risk the drinking water of over one million Canadians.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to conduct an environmental assessment under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on the proposed Highland Companies' mega quarry development.

Canadian Wheat Board
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, while the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands responded to my question by citing one person who favoured the end of the Canadian Wheat Board, I rise to submit a petition signed by countless western Canadian grain and barley farmers who are concerned with the government's ideological plan to kill the Canadian Wheat Board without first holding a plebiscite of the board's membership as it is required to do by section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Western Canadian farmers' livelihoods are at risk should they lose the clout of the Canadian Wheat Board to set the best price for their grain, negotiate fair treatment from the railways, and lower transportation costs among the many services it provides.

The petitioners demand that the Minister of Agriculture honour their wishes as expressed democratically through a plebiscite they held this past summer.

The Environment
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding the atmospheric ozone layer, which is critical to life on earth through its regulation of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and therefore has a treaty obligation to monitor changes in climate, including atmospheric ozone. Models predict that climate change will alter the ozone layer over Canada, possibly aggravating health issues associated with vitamin D deficiency. Sustained measurements are needed to test model predictions and provide information about problems.

The petitioners call upon the Minister of the Environment to develop a plan to ensure the integrity of the ozone monitoring program and commission a report to assess the adequacy of Canadian contributions to the global observing system for climate in support of the United Nations framework convention.

Canadian Wheat Board
Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The petition is signed by a number of prairie farmers who believe it is absolutely critical that the government reverse its decision in regard to getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Earlier today we heard the government refer to one letter saying that individual wants to get rid of the Wheat Board. We all know there are tens of thousands of prairie wheat farmers and barley farmers who want the government to retain the Wheat Board. It is with pleasure that I present this petition today.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

October 17th, 2011 / 3:20 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, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 124, 128 and 130.

Question No. 124
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

With regard to designating Rouge Park as an urban national park: (a) what is a timeline of actions that will be taken; (b) when is the deadline to designate Rouge Park as an urban national park; (c) how much money will be spent on designating Rouge Park as an urban national park; (d) how much money will be allocated for maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of the park; (e) who are the regional, federal, municipal, Aboriginal and community stakeholders involved; and (f) will designating Rouge Park an urban national park create any new jobs and, if so, how many jobs will be created?

Question No. 124
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), consistent with the recent Speech from the Throne, Parks Canada will work with provincial, regional, municipal, aboriginal and community stakeholders toward the establishment of a national urban park in the Rouge Valley. As there are no conservation models in Canada that respond to the Rouge Valley’s unique requirements, a new park establishment strategy and process is currently being developed by Parks Canada.

Parks Canada intends to pursue an aggressive park establishment schedule. However, it would be premature and inappropriate for Parks Canada to unilaterally determine the timeline of actions to be taken. At present, there is a high priority on building relationships and providing meaningful opportunities for public consultation. This will be a vital and integral part of the negotiations and establishment process for Rouge Valley national urban park.

Parks Canada has initiated a dialogue with the Province of Ontario and other key stakeholders to reach a shared understanding for a collaborative process to create Rouge Valley national urban park. Public consultations will be undertaken to determine priorities and objectives, and ensure broad-based public support. Lands to be included within the park boundary will have to be confirmed in collaboration with the Province of Ontario, Transport Canada and other interested parties. Only then will negotiations take place towards an agreement that will identify the key park management concepts. These park management concepts will, in turn, become part of the legislation to formally create the park.

Although there is a sequence for establishing new protected areas, each situation is different and must reflect the area’s unique circumstances. A detailed work plan is being developed in collaboration with the interested parties.

With regard to (b), as with all park establishment processes, Parks Canada does not set a deadline for designation. As stated previously, timelines and circumstances vary, and provisions must be made for the meaningful and respectful involvement of all interested parties.

With regard to (c), Parks Canada will allocate the necessary funding to undertake this initiative. Consistent with other national park establishment processes across the country, Parks Canada will fund required activities such as studies, surveying and public consultation processes. However, there are no conservation models in Canada that respond to the Rouge Valley’s unique requirements; consequently, there are no comparable projects that can serve as benchmarks to assess funding requirements. At this time, it is premature to estimate a park establishment budget.

With regard to (d), as no comparable project exists, Rouge Valley national urban park will require a new heritage conservation instrument and an innovative management approach to respond to its unique urban context and requirements. Financial needs and allocations will be identified as this new concept becomes more fully developed. Priorities, objectives and performance indicators will be developed, guided by consultations with a broad range of stakeholders. Resources will be allocated to ensure the integrated delivery of Parks Canada’s mandate. This includes the conservation of the park’s rich natural and cultural heritage resources, opportunities for outreach and a range of visitor experience opportunities. The specific attributes of this urban context will also require consideration of mixed land uses, including the promotion of sustainable agriculture.

With regard to (e), stakeholders that have an interest in this initiative will be consulted. Many stakeholders are already involved or well aware of this initiative, but it is expected that more will wish to participate as the project unfolds. Stakeholders already involved or that will become involved include the Province of Ontario; aboriginal communities; Rouge Park Alliance; Toronto Region Conservation Authority, TRCA; City of Toronto; Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville; Town of Richmond Hill; City of Pickering; Town of Markham; Region of York; Region of Durham; Toronto Zoo; University of Toronto--Scarborough; Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corporation; Ontario Nature; Friends of the Rouge Watershed; Save the Rouge Valley System and the farming community.

With regard to (f), the creation of a national urban park in the Rouge Valley will create new jobs. However, it is impossible at this point in time to specify how many. The specific number of jobs will be reflective of the park management concepts, and the priorities and objectives determined through public consultations. As is the case with other heritage places administered by Parks Canada, resources will be allocated to heritage resource protection, learning programs and visitor experience opportunities.

Question No. 128
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

With regard to the Gander Weather Office: (a) what, if any, changes in staffing and mandate or responsibilities have been made within the Gander Weather Office since 2006; and (b) how many employees currently work at the Gander Weather Office and are they responsible for public, marine or aviation forecasting?

Question No. 128
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), there have been no changes to staffing levels, mandate or responsibilities of the Newfoundland and Labrador weather office since being opened in January 2007 following the spring 2006 Prime Minister’s announcement.

With regard to (b), there are 16 meteorologists in Gander working in the weather office along, with two computer science staff supporting their information technology required for the centre. The mandate and responsibilities have remained focused on the public and marine forecast and warning programs along with the provision of 1-900 consultation services for the province.

Question No. 130
Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

With regard to applications under the Investment Canada Act, for the period January 1, 2006 to May 31, 2011: (a) how many applications were approved by the government; (b) how many applications were rejected; (c) what measures are in place to ensure that investors live up to undertakings they made to gain approval under the Act; and (d) how many times has the government withdrawn approval as a result of an investor’s failure to live up to those undertakings?