All sittings← 2012-11-232012-11-27 →
Monday, November 26, 2012 · sitting No. 185
Commons opens debate on northern jobs and growth bill
The House spent the largest share of the sitting on second reading of Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development John Duncan moved that the bill, which enacts the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act, be read a second time and referred to committee. New Democrat MP Dennis Bevington raised concerns about combining two distinct acts in one bill and called for thorough committee study of land-use planning provisions.
Question period featured repeated exchanges on environmental protection. New Democrat MP Megan Leslie accused the government of weakening the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act through budget legislation. Conservative MP Jason Kenney replied that regulation must be based on common sense and that the government would focus resources on waters that are actually navigable.
Decided that day
- Bill C-27 passed
- Three amendments to Bill C-27 defeated
- Bill C-47 given second reading
- Bills C-466 and C-467 introduced
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 · 2012-11-26
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
Income Tax Act
Liberal MP Sean Casey spoke in favour of volunteerism during private members' business on Bill C-399, an income tax amendment to provide travel tax credits for volunteers logging at least 130 hours. Conservative MP Ted Opitz called the bill poorly written and at odds with the definition of service.
Read the exchangeCitizenship and Immigration
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale pressed the government to restore health coverage for refugee claimants after criticism from premiers including Saskatchewan's Brad Wall. Conservative MP Jason Kenney said provinces remain free to provide additional services if they choose.
Read the exchangeNational Defence
New Democrat MP Matthew Kellway said the military ombudsman had been denied documents while investigating reservist care. Conservative MP Peter MacKay replied that the government had made progress on 10 of 12 ombudsman recommendations and maintained a productive relationship.
Read the exchangeForeign Investment
New Democrat MP Peter Julian criticized the timing of new foreign takeover rules after the Nexen-CNOOC deal. Conservative MP Christian Paradis said the government reviews each transaction on its merits and accused the NDP of opposing all foreign investment.
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
- deflectedThe EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). loaded question.The answer dismisses the premise outright and shifts to policy defense without addressing the rushed legislation claim.
the member is absolutely wrong.
- deflectedThe EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). loaded question.The answer redefines the act's purpose and pivots to common-sense examples instead of addressing the environmental assessment claim.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is about navigation.
- misdirectedThe EconomyMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The answer ignores the inconsistency question and attacks the NDP's economic plan instead.
We know what the NDP contingency is for the economy.
- deflectedForeign InvestmentMr. Peter Julian (NDP) asked Christian Paradis (Conservative). loaded question.The answer contrasts party positions but avoids explaining the timing of rules after the Nexen approval.
on the contrary, our government is being responsible.
- deflectedForeign InvestmentMr. Peter Julian (NDP) asked Christian Paradis (Conservative). loaded question.The answer lists NDP opposition points and contrasts parties without addressing the midnight decisions or consultation refusal.
we have improved the act and the NDP has virtually opposed everything we have done.
- partly answeredCitizenship and ImmigrationRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The answer explains current coverage levels and provincial options but does not address reinstating services or the risk of deaths.
we continue to provide health coverage to refugee claimants.
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). loaded question.The answer repeats coverage distinctions for other groups and provincial roles without engaging the values comparison to Premier Wall.
Each province has constitutional responsibility for health care.
- misdirectedCitizenship and ImmigrationRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). loaded question.The answer shifts to asylum claimant rejection rates and legal distinctions instead of addressing the specific chemotherapy case or fixing the policy.
When he speaks about refugees, he is blurring a very important distinction here.
- partly answeredNational DefenceMr. Matthew Kellway (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.Addresses relationship and progress but sidesteps the specific refusal of documents.
we continue to have a very productive and transparent relationship with the ombudsman and his office.
- deflectedNational DefenceMs. Christine Moore (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.Corrects the implementation count but avoids explaining any interference or document classification.
We have made progress on 10 of the ombudsman's 12 recommendations.
- answeredNational DefenceMs. Christine Moore (NDP) asked Rona Ambrose (Conservative). substantive question.Directly confirms the statement of requirements will be set aside during options analysis.
the statement of requirements will be set aside while a full options analysis is completed.
- answeredNational DefenceMr. Matthew Kellway (NDP) asked Rona Ambrose (Conservative). substantive question.Explains the options analysis will proceed with the statement of requirements set aside.
The current statement of requirements will be set aside while that full options analysis is being performed.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.Ignores the Swiss contact and SNC-Lavalin questions to demand an apology instead.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.Focuses on attacking the member over thin ice and false allegations rather than addressing Elections Canada request.
He is the one on thin ice, and that ice is quickly melting under the heat and noise that he makes in this chamber.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.Attacks the member for calling the riding deadbeat and demands apology instead of addressing the donation concerns.
I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. member would call an entire constituency of Canadians "deadbeat".
- deflectedEthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). loaded question.Ignores patronage and cleaning up Ottawa to pivot to NDP opposition on defence spending.
What we do know from the NDP, the no defence party, is that it opposes us in all of these important investments
- misdirectedElections CanadaMr. Craig Scott (NDP) asked Tim Uppal (Conservative). substantive question.The answer ignores the timeline question and pivots to attacking the NDP on unrelated donations.
What really hurts Canadians' confidence in our electoral system is when they hear about scandals such as the NDP accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations.
- answeredCommittees of the HouseMr. Sean Casey (Liberal) asked Peter Van Loan (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly states the ejection was a security decision, not the chair's, and affirms committees should remain open.
That was a decision that was made by House of Commons security, not a decision made by the committee chair.
- deflectedCommittees of the HouseMr. Sean Casey (Liberal) asked Peter Van Loan (Conservative). substantive question.The answer denies any misconduct and shifts to praising the government's support for veterans instead of addressing the apology request.
There was no inappropriate conduct on the part of the chair, in fact the chair has undertaken to get to the bottom of what happened by discussing this with House of Commons security
- partly answeredScience and TechnologyLawrence MacAulay (Liberal) asked Gerry Ritz (Conservative). loaded question.The answer rejects the premise of hiding results but explains the audit without addressing intent to strip credentials.
The management of the lab says publicly that it expected this audit.
- deflectedEmploymentMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (NDP) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates general policy on Canadians first without addressing the specific B.C. mining visas or suspension.
our government has a very firm belief that Canadians should have first crack at every job that is available here in Canada.
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). loaded question.The answer corrects terminology on refugees versus claimants and poses a counter-question rather than addressing provincial costs.
Is it the member's position that everyone who is avoiding removal from Canada should get comprehensive, extended and supplemental health benefits?
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The answer reframes the issue as NDP ideology on non-refugees instead of addressing provincial complaints or reconsideration.
it is becoming increasingly clear that the New Democratic Party wants federal health insurance—not just for basic services, but also for supplemental services—to be provided to people who are not refugees
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The answer defends the private sponsorship program historically but does not commit to working with sponsors or reversing caps.
This program has always been part of our refugee system.
- deflectedInternational TradeMr. Don Davies (NDP) asked Ed Fast (Conservative). substantive question.The answer dismisses the leaked memo as speculation and pivots to attacking the NDP instead of addressing the negotiation criticism.
Sadly, the member is engaging in idle speculation.
- partly answeredInternational TradeMs. Hélène LeBlanc (NDP) asked Ed Fast (Conservative). substantive question.The answer denies the premise and restates the commitment to Canadian interests but provides no specifics on cheese or EU demands.
We seek a balanced outcome to make sure that Canadian interests are promoted.
- deflectedSportsMr. Matthew Dubé (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The answer ignores the ad spending question entirely and shifts to unrelated topics of museums and heritage.
That is why we are creating the new Canadian Museum of History.
- misdirectedSportsMr. Matthew Dubé (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The answer defends spending but ends by attacking the NDP's past position rather than addressing athlete funding priorities.
- answeredCitizenship and ImmigrationMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly addresses both refugee numbers and the provincial nominee program with specific figures and policy changes.
we have increased that program tenfold since coming to office, going from 4,000 permanent residents a year admitted through the provincial nominee programs to over 40,000.
- partly answeredAboriginal AffairsCarolyn Bennett (Liberal) asked John Duncan (Conservative). substantive question.The answer affirms commitment to the settlement agreement but does not address the specific requests for budget, time, or Métis inclusion.
Our government will continue to honour its obligations under the Indian residential schools agreement.
- deflectedRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Randall Garrison (NDP) asked Ms. Candice Bergen (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids the resource question and pivots to criticizing the NDP for not supporting Bill C-42.
This enhancement would give the RCMP the ability to deal not only with harassment but also with other serious issues in the RCMP.
- misdirectedRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (NDP) asked Ms. Candice Bergen (Conservative). substantive question.The answer denies cuts but attacks the NDP for voting against the bill instead of addressing how the plan will be funded.
New Democrats talk a lot about it, but when it comes to action, they do nothing.
- deflectedEmployment InsuranceMs. Lise St-Denis (Liberal) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). substantive question.The answer promotes general job creation without addressing the specific impact on seasonal tourism workers or providing reassurance.
The changes to the employment insurance system help people find jobs.
- deflectedThe EnvironmentMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (NDP) asked Peter Kent (Conservative). substantive question.The answer discusses Canada's overall targets and criticizes the NDP but does not address pushing for funding promises at Doha.
Canada is halfway toward meeting our Copenhagen targets.
- misdirectedForeign AffairsMs. Hélène Laverdière (NDP) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The answer praises the candidate and attacks opposition parties instead of addressing passport services or the candidate's comments.
- deflectedTaxationMr. Jean-François Fortin (Bloc) asked Ted Menzies (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates the low-tax plan and debt reduction but does not specify where additional cuts will occur or address costs to Quebec.
We continue on a low-tax plan and we will not do what the opposition wants us to do, and that is to raise taxes on absolutely anything and everything.