Commons devotes nearly half day to federal accountability act debate

Other moments

Question 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

1. deflected
   Softwood LumberBill Graham (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer avoids the accusation by claiming no agreement exists and deferring to the Prime Minister.there is no final confirmation of any agreement with the Americans.
2. deflected
   Softwood LumberBill Graham (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer repeats that no agreement exists and defers to the Prime Minister without addressing the weakened position claim.there is no agreement as we speak.
3. deflected
   Softwood LumberBill Graham (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer dismisses the question with personal criticism and again defers without addressing the duty return commitment.I am honestly quite unimpressed with what I am hearing on the other side of the House.
4. deflected
   Softwood LumberJean Lapierre (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer sidesteps the lying accusation by emphasizing consultation without confirming or denying the agreement.we on this side are extremely anxious to hear the opinions of everyone.
5. misdirected
   Softwood LumberJean Lapierre (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the opposition's record and uses slogans rather than addressing provincial opposition.the Conservative Party made a commitment to try to solve the problem, whereas the Liberal government was not able to do anything
6. deflected
   Softwood LumberMr. Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids engaging the specific terms of the deal by asking to wait for results.I would ask my hon. colleague to wait for the results.
7. deflected
   Softwood LumberMr. Gilles Duceppe (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer claims the deal benefits all Canadians but does not address returning to negotiations.the agreements to be concluded—if that happens and if the Prime Minister so decides—will be for all Canadians.
8. deflected
   Softwood LumberMr. Pierre Paquette (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer again insists no agreement exists and defers to the Prime Minister without addressing the quota request.if an agreement is reached, the Prime Minister will be present to announce the ins and outs of it
9. deflected
   Softwood LumberMr. Pierre Paquette (Bloc) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids the specific questions on loan guarantees and an aid package by redirecting to wait for the Prime Minister.it would be reasonable for the members of this House to ensure that they have all the information and wait for the Prime Minister to come to them and present the ins and outs of the matter.
10. deflected
    Softwood LumberJack Layton (NDP) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer deflects the direct challenge on the deal terms by repeating the call to wait for the Prime Minister without addressing the sellout claims.I am asking the member to reasonably wait until such time as the Prime Minister comes to see us.
11. deflected
    Softwood LumberJack Layton (NDP) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). loaded question.The answer sidesteps the accusation of being afraid of Bush and the sellout framing by restating resolve without engaging the specific proposal rejection demand.at the risk of sounding redundant, it is clear that on this side of the House we are not doormats and we are not giving in.
12. deflected
    Softwood LumberMr. Blair Wilson (Liberal) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.The answer evades the legacy and flip-flop questions by asking the member to wait for the Prime Minister instead of defending the deal.I would like to ask him, as did the minister, if there is any agreement and there is no agreement right now, to wait for the Prime Minister to come forward.
13. misdirected
    Softwood LumberMr. Blair Wilson (Liberal) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.The answer turns to attacking the previous Liberal government rather than addressing the broken promise on returning duties.With years of Liberal government neglect and mismanagement, we have finally the opportunity to come together with industry in the United States to put forth what is in the best interests
14. misdirected
    Softwood LumberMr. Roger Valley (Liberal) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.The answer pivots to blaming the previous Liberal government instead of responding to the call to reject the deal and return all duties.it is ironic that this member would stand in the House because every single issue that he brings forward is due to the lack of action of the previous government.
15. misdirected
    Softwood LumberMr. Roger Valley (Liberal) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the former Liberal government and the asker rather than addressing the unconditional surrender or flip-flop claims.the only sellout is the former Liberal government that did absolutely nothing to help this industry.
16. partly answered
    Softwood LumberMr. Paul Crête (Bloc) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly addresses loan guarantees by stating they are prepared to include them if necessary, while still deflecting on the rest.we are prepared to include loan guarantees, if necessary.
17. deflected
    Softwood LumberMr. Paul Crête (Bloc) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.Answer ignores the specific claim about the billion dollars and its uses, pivoting to general long-term solution talk.we are looking for a long term solution not a short term one-off deal similar to the deals of the former government.
18. partly answered
    Child CareMs. Paule Brunelle (Bloc) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). substantive question.Answer addresses fairness and universality but shifts to provincial clawbacks instead of the proposed tax credit.We want to ensure that the net benefit to them is fair and equitable no matter what their family structure and no matter what their income range.
19. misdirected
    Child CareMs. Paule Brunelle (Bloc) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). loaded question.Answer attacks the province and delays response to budget rather than addressing the Prime Minister's cooperation promise.I would encourage the hon. member to have her province join with five other provinces across this country to make sure that parents, and not politicians, get the benefit of this child care allowance.
20. misdirected
    The BudgetJohn McCallum (Liberal) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.Answer attacks the prior government and a former minister instead of committing to line-by-line cuts disclosure.When it comes to managing taxpayers' money, we do not belong to the David Dingwall entitlement society, resulting in a payment of $417,780 of taxpayers' money when that minister was responsible for saying, what was it, "voluntary" or "involuntary".
21. deflected
    The BudgetJohn McCallum (Liberal) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.Answer repeats fiscal restraint talking point and cuts off without addressing the line-by-line request.we are committed to fiscal restraint, which I must say is a term that is likely foreign--
22. misdirected
    Citizenship and ImmigrationAlbina Guarnieri (Liberal) asked Monte Solberg (Conservative). loaded question.Answer attacks the questioner's party over past funds and defends the appointee instead of addressing the apology request.if the member is concerned about lawlessness, she certainly belongs to the wrong party.
23. misdirected
    Citizenship and ImmigrationAlbina Guarnieri (Liberal) asked Monte Solberg (Conservative). loaded question.Answer counters with deportation numbers under the prior government and calls the concern hypocritical rather than addressing the appointee's statements.I find it a little ironic, and frankly it is pretty hypocritical, for members to get up on their high horse and say they are concerned about this issue when they deported so many of the people they say cared about.
24. answered
    National DefenceMr. David Christopherson (NDP) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). substantive question.Answer directly states refusal to change policy and explains the existing flag-lowering practices.
25. deflected
    National DefenceMr. David Christopherson (NDP) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates existing policy without engaging the specific flag-lowering proposal.
26. answered
    National DefenceUjjal Dosanjh (Liberal) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly explains media access rules at each stage of repatriation, addressing the UK comparison.At Trenton it is a private affair, where the families for the first time meet their loved ones.
27. deflected
    National DefenceUjjal Dosanjh (Liberal) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). loaded question.The response ignores the question about rule changes and the protest by simply restating prior remarks.
28. answered
    National DefenceMr. John Cannis (Liberal) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). substantive question.The answer outlines media access at origin, funerals, and the private Trenton stage, addressing the call to reverse policy.They have access, depending upon the families' desires, at the funerals and ceremonies.
29. deflected
    National DefenceMr. John Cannis (Liberal) asked Gordon O'Connor (Conservative). loaded question.The answer defends the policy and dismisses the premise of hiding details rather than addressing the caucus criticism.There is nothing being hidden, and every detail of every incident is known, so this is a false allegation.
30. partly answered
    Older WorkersMr. Yves Lessard (Bloc) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The answer acknowledges the issue's importance but defers any commitment to the upcoming budget.I encourage the members to await the budget.
31. partly answered
    Older WorkersMr. Yves Lessard (Bloc) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The answer discusses retraining preference and again defers to the budget without committing to an income-support program.However, it is a specific issue with respect to which I encourage the members to await the budget.
32. partly answered
    Canada PostJohn McKay (Liberal) asked Lawrence Cannon (Conservative). substantive question.The answer notes representations received and promises future advice to the House without addressing the requested action.We are looking at that issue now and we will be taking note not only of that issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days.
33. partly answered
    Softwood LumberMs. Catherine Bell (NDP) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). substantive question.States no deal exists and emphasizes negotiations without explaining benefits of any potential deal.at this time there is no deal.
34. deflected
    Softwood LumberMr. Peter Julian (NDP) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.Criticizes the question's language and restates negotiations without addressing the claims.I find that language unbecoming a parliamentarian.
35. partly answered
    IndustryMr. Brent St. Denis (Liberal) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). substantive question.Declines to comment on the specific case while offering general support for Canadian companies.I cannot comment on this case.
36. answered
    Business of the HouseRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.Provides a detailed schedule of upcoming government business and events.today we are going to continue and hope to complete the second reading debate on the federal accountability act, Bill C-2.
37. answered
    Business of the HouseRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.Confirms the debate can address the suggested points on Darfur and the Holocaust.Certainly that and all issues surrounding this difficult situation can and should be raised at the take note debate on Monday evening.
38. answered
    PrivilegeMr. Pat Martin (NDP) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.Directly rebuts the privilege breach claim with multiple reasons including historical policy and Crown prerogative.I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the privileges of some hon. members have been breached by following a policy that has been in place most of the years since Confederation.
39. misdirected
    PrivilegeRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Garth Turner (Conservative). substantive question.Responds to an unrelated accusation about a statement on soldier repatriation instead of the privilege issue.a few minutes ago, during question period, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, during a question in which he was actually making a statement regarding the repatriation of fallen Canadian soldiers at CFB in Trenton, told the House that I had informed the Prime Minister that the policy of the government was wrong.