All sittings← 2010-11-052010-11-16 →
Monday, November 15, 2010 · sitting No. 96
House debates bill ending parole discounts for multiple murderers
Government orders on Bill C-48, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, occupied the largest share of the sitting. Conservative MP Daniel Petit told the House the measure would let judges lengthen the time multiple murderers must serve before parole eligibility. New Democrat MP Joe Comartin and Liberal MP Michael Savage questioned whether the short title and policy choices amounted to political posturing rather than measured justice reform.
Question period opened with repeated exchanges on the post-2011 Afghanistan training mission. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff pressed for numbers of trainers, locations and combat restrictions while Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon repeated that combat operations would end and a non-combat training role would continue under the 2008 parliamentary motion.
Opposition members also challenged spending on the G8 and G20 summits and changes to veterans' benefits. Liberal MP Geoff Regan cited specific costs for tablecloths and catering while Conservative ministers defended security outlays and transparency. Bloc Québécois MP Guy André and Conservative minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn traded claims over lump-sum versus monthly payments for injured veterans.
Decided that day
- Senate bill S-7 advanced one stage
From the Hansard record of the sitting. Full Hansard
No CPAC Question Period upload is on file for this day. CPAC’s channel goes back to December 2019.
Who held the floor · 2010-11-15
41One Bill Edges Ahead Amid DeflectionsThe House spent most of its time debating criminal-justice bills and Afghanistan, advancing Senate bill S-7 by one stage. Question period produced few direct answers and no recorded votes were held.AI-rated Score out of 100; the verdict and the answer ratings behind it are a model’s reading. How the AI rates this
AI-rated The sitting score and the rating of each answer come from a language model reading Hansard. How the AI rates this
Other moments
National Defence
Liberal MP Marc Garneau asked why Canada would commit to the F-35 without an open competition given reported cost overruns, and Defence Minister Peter MacKay replied that John McCain had praised the aircraft and that Liberals had earlier cancelled other projects.
Read the exchangeThe Environment
New Democrat MP Linda Duncan raised a complaint from Fort McKay First Nation about an open toxic tailings pond and called for federal enforcement action; Environment Minister John Baird said officials would visit the site the next day.
Read the exchangeCanadian Human Rights Act
Liberal MP Paul Szabo supported Bill C-481 to end mandatory retirement in federal workplaces, noting longer life expectancy and inadequate pensions, while New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen asked how employers could remove workers no longer able to perform essential duties.
Read the exchangeProtecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act
Conservative MP Bob Dechert defended amendments restoring the short title of Bill C-22 and clarified that internet service providers need only report material brought to their attention, not search proactively.
Read the exchangeInternational Co-operation
Conservative MP Dave Van Kesteren asked how much the matching fund had raised for Pakistan flood victims, and International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda reported $46.8 million from individual Canadians.
Read the exchangeQuestion Period, exchange by exchange
AI-rated Each answer’s rating (answered, partly answered, deflected, answered something else) is a model’s reading of the exchange. How the AI rates this
- partly answeredAfghanistanMichael Ignatieff (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer states the end of combat and shift to training and aid but omits requested details on scope or location.
As we transition out of the combat mission, we will continue to provide aide and focus on development.
- deflectedAfghanistanMichael Ignatieff (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The response discusses ongoing review and general priorities without answering any of the specific questions on trainers or locations.
The government is reviewing Canada's development and diplomatic efforts post-2011.
- deflectedAfghanistanMichael Ignatieff (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). rhetorical question.The answer repeats the 2011 combat end date and avoids addressing accusations of secrecy or lack of transparency.
In accordance with the parliamentary motion that was adopted here in March 2008, Canada's combat mission will end in 2011.
- partly answeredAfghanistanBob Rae (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer gives the 2014 timeline but states that numbers and costs remain under review.
I think the Prime Minister responded to the question in terms of length and indicated that this role would go until 2014.
- deflectedAfghanistanBob Rae (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The response cites an ongoing review and defers any concrete plan announcement.
When the time is right, we will be able to make the appropriate announcements.
- deflectedAfghanistanMr. Pierre Paquette (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer denies breaking a promise by restating adherence to the 2008 motion without addressing the 2014 extension claim.
We have said on a number of occasions that Canada's combat mission will end in 2011.
- deflectedAfghanistanMr. Pierre Paquette (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids a yes-or-no reply and instead highlights non-combat benefits and past achievements.
I would like to remind my colleague that the sacrifices of brave Canadians have made it possible to build a safer, more stable, more prosperous Afghanistan, which is not a haven for terrorists.
- answeredAfghanistanMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer directly distinguishes combat missions requiring parliamentary approval from non-combat cases like Haiti.
In situations that require legitimacy, for example, when the Government of Canada commits to sending soldiers to combat, it makes sense for the government to obtain the support of the Canadian Parliament.
- deflectedAfghanistanMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer discusses the throne speech and a review without addressing the consultation promise or broken promise accusation.
We are in the process of reviewing the situation, and we will inform the House once that review is complete.
- deflectedAfghanistanJack Layton (NDP) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer claims adherence to a prior motion but avoids explaining the lack of a new parliamentary vote.
- deflectedAfghanistanJack Layton (NDP) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). rhetorical question.The answer reiterates mission importance and a review process instead of addressing the quoted commitment to a vote.
As I mentioned before, we are reviewing Canada's development and diplomatic efforts in post-2011.
- partly answeredAfghanistanJack Layton (NDP) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer justifies no vote for non-combat roles but does not address the specific extension or accountability concerns raised.
our recent deployment of military personnel to Haiti following the earthquake in the month of January is a perfect example of deploying troops in a non-combat role without requiring a vote of the House of Commons.
- deflectedG8 and G20 SummitsGeoff Regan (Liberal) asked Vic Toews (Conservative). loaded question.The answer emphasizes security and transparency without addressing the specific lavish spending items or deficit link.
Disclosing the full to date details of the costs of these summits is further proof of our government's commitment to transparency and accountability.
- deflectedG8 and G20 SummitsGeoff Regan (Liberal) asked Vic Toews (Conservative). loaded question.The answer focuses on security duties and transparency but ignores the questioned non-security expenses like tablecloths.
Disclosing the full to date details of the cost of these summits is further proof of our government's commitment to transparency and accountability.
- partly answeredG8 and G20 SummitsMs. Siobhan Coady (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer explains the purpose of promotional items but does not address the excess or call for an apology.
In Muskoka and Toronto these items were a popular component of our community outreach activities.
- deflectedG8 and G20 SummitsMs. Siobhan Coady (Liberal) asked Vic Toews (Conservative). loaded question.The answer claims completeness in cost disclosure without addressing the specific omitted table or other forgotten expenses.
unlike any other nation, Canada has been complete in detailing the costs of these summits.
- partly answeredVeterans AffairsMr. Guy André (Bloc) asked Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Conservative). substantive question.The answer discusses payment options and a new chapter but does not address restoring the lifetime monthly pension.
A lump sum payment will obviously be one of the options that will be offered to our veterans.
- partly answeredVeterans AffairsMr. Guy André (Bloc) asked Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Conservative). substantive question.The answer lists new benefits including a monthly allowance similar to the former pension but does not confirm amending legislation to restore it.
We have also announced a permanent monthly allowance that is similar to the former pension but that complements all of our measures.
- deflectedThe EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Bloc) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids stating Canada's targets or position for Cancun and instead lists unrelated government actions.
We are going to go to Cancun as a government and we are going to strongly support the Copenhagen accord.
- deflectedThe EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Bloc) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The answer lists past actions but does not address announcing a new plan in response to the urging described.
Our government took part in negotiations for the Copenhagen accord.
- misdirectedNational DefenceMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the Liberal Party's record instead of addressing the F-35 cost overruns or open competition.
Why is it that the Liberal Party continually reverses itself, swallows itself whole, acts so cynically when it comes to the funding of the important equipment for the Canadian Forces?
- misdirectedNational DefenceMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the Liberal Party's past decisions rather than addressing competitive bidding or cost overruns.
Why does the Liberal Party continually cave in and cancel military contracts to the detriment of the Canadian Forces and the detriment of the Canadian aerospace industry?
- deflectedAfghanistanBob Rae (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer states a review is underway but provides no details on the plan for 2011-2014.
we are reviewing our position in terms of training.
- deflectedAfghanistanBob Rae (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer acknowledges impatience but again defers sharing any plan details.
I understand my hon. colleague's legendary impatience.
- deflectedForeign TakeoversMs. Chris Charlton (NDP) asked Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids the EI request by restating general neutrality policy instead of addressing the specific ask.
The system is designed to remain neutral and to not interfere in labour disputes, and that will be the case in this case as well.
- answeredForeign TakeoversMr. David Christopherson (NDP) asked Mr. Mike Lake (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly confirms support for the motion as asked.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the NDP motion tomorrow.
- partly answeredFinancial Services IndustryMr. Daniel Paillé (Bloc) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The response discusses the agreement benefits but does not name negotiators or explain the omission.
the discussions were conducted by the Government of Canada.
- deflectedFinancial Services IndustryMr. Daniel Paillé (Bloc) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). loaded question.The answer explains the voluntary system and court role while ignoring the loaded attack on the project.
It is a totally voluntary system. If a province such as Quebec chooses not to join, that is up to Quebec.
- deflectedAfghanistanMichael Ignatieff (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The response promises future disclosure without providing any requested details on trainers.
We are evaluating all of the options. When it comes time to make these options and the decisions taken by the government known, we will do so.
- deflectedAfghanistanMichael Ignatieff (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer again defers answering specifics by stating a review is ongoing.
When we have completed our review, we will make these options public.
- deflectedCredit Card IndustryMr. Glenn Thibeault (NDP) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The answer defends the voluntary code without addressing whether regulations will be introduced.
I am pleased to say we had the support of all of the participants by the time we developed this voluntary code of conduct, which is working well for consumers and for the industry in Canada.
- deflectedCredit Card IndustryMr. Glenn Thibeault (NDP) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The response reiterates consultation support for the code without committing to future regulations.
There was some resistance by the industry, but the industry compromised on certain points, and we were able to obtain a voluntary code of conduct that serves Canadian consumers.
- deflectedMembers' Franking PrivilegesCarolyn Bennett (Liberal) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The answer ignores the specific franking allegation and pivots to an unrelated subsidy proposal.
there are rules in place and those rules should be followed.
- misdirectedEconomic DevelopmentMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Bloc) asked Denis Lebel (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the questioner's consistency instead of addressing participation in the Montreal project.
it is very surprising to see the Bloc's critic defending the banking system, when nearly every question period he attacks the banking sector.
- answeredThe EnvironmentMs. Linda Duncan (NDP) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly states that officials will investigate the tailings pond the next day and references the water panel.
Environment Canada officials will be on the ground tomorrow to get a first-hand look at the situation.
- deflectedGovernment AccountabilityCarolyn Bennett (Liberal) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The answer restates the existence of rules and again pivots to cancelling the party subsidy rather than addressing repayment.
there are rules in place, and we expect all of the rules to be followed.
- partly answeredHomelessnessMr. Christian Ouellet (Bloc) asked Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Conservative). substantive question.The answer describes federal consultations and funding levels but does not commit to respecting Quebec's specific approach.
in developing a homelessness plan we have consulted with all levels of government, local communities, and organizations.
- answeredStatus of WomenMs. Irene Mathyssen (NDP) asked Rona Ambrose (Conservative). loaded question.The answer directly rebuts the funding-cut claim by listing actual expenditures and new programs.
that is completely false. We are fully supportive of this organization.
- misdirectedPoints of OrderMarlene Jennings (Liberal) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The answer criticizes the apology itself rather than accepting it or addressing the point of order.
I would suggest the statement that the member has just made is not in keeping with that commitment.