All sittings← 2013-06-072013-06-11 →
Monday, June 10, 2013 · sitting No. 266
Conservatives move time allocation on tax conventions bill
Conservative MP Ted Menzies moved a motion to limit debate on Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, to five further hours at second reading. NDP MP Nathan Cullen said the government had broken records for shutting down debate and that the parties had been negotiating in good faith to allow productive debate on legislation both sides supported.
In question period, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair asked whether former prime minister's chief of staff Nigel Wright had signing authority over Conservative Party funds. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said all Conservative Party spending is paid from a single account controlled by the party and reported to Elections Canada.
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale asked whether the prime minister's lawyer Benjamin Perrin had been aware of the terms of a deal involving Senator Mike Duffy. Conservative MP James Moore said the prime minister had been clear and noted that the Liberal leader had defended Senator Mac Harb.
Decided that day
- Bill S-17 passed third reading
- Amendment to a motion defeated
- Bill advanced to second chamber
- Three new private members' bills 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 · 2013-06-10
69Bills move while questions mostly missThe House devoted the bulk of its time to advancing tax conventions and other legislation, with multiple bills progressing through stages and several votes recorded. Question period produced few direct answers, yet substantive business accounted for over 90 percent of words spoken.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
Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act
Conservative MP Patrick Brown said protected areas under Parks Canada had grown 54 per cent since 2006. NDP MP Ève Péclet questioned how a new park would be maintained after cuts to Parks Canada.
Read the exchangeFamily Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act
Conservative MP Kelly Block said Bill S-2 would give individuals on reserves the same rights as other Canadians in family violence cases. NDP MP Francine Raynault said the bill would not give aboriginal women the same rights because provincial laws do not apply on reserves.
Read the exchangePrivacy
NDP MP Thomas Mulcair asked whether the government was monitoring Canadians' telephone calls and emails through its own electronic monitoring program. Conservative MP Peter MacKay said the program is prohibited by law from directing activities at Canadians.
Read the exchangeRoyal Canadian Mounted Police
NDP MP Randall Garrison said the minister had rejected civilian governance for the RCMP. Conservative MP Vic Toews said the government had taken strong action to restore pride in the force and that the NDP had voted against reform legislation.
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
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.The answer discusses general party fund controls without addressing Wright's specific authorization.
all Conservative Party spending is paid out of a single account that is controlled by the Conservative Party.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.The answer repeats party control of funds but evades the question on Wright's signing authority.
the Conservative Party of Canada controls the Conservative Fund of Canada.
- answeredPrivacyThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly states the program is prohibited from monitoring Canadians and cites oversight.
This program is specifically prohibited from looking at the information of Canadians.
- answeredPrivacyMr. Jack Harris (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The answer confirms the legal prohibition on targeting Canadians and references compliance measures.
In fact, the program, as I just said, is prohibited, by law, from directing its activities at Canadians anywhere in the world or at any person in Canada.
- partly answeredPrivacyMr. Jack Harris (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses PRISM use indirectly by noting long-standing foreign intelligence activities but does not confirm or deny specific use.
It has have been doing it for years, and the reports are tabled in Parliament.
- misdirectedEthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The answer ignores the question about Perrin and instead attacks Liberal senators.
Here is the deal that he made for himself.
- misdirectedEthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The answer sidesteps the question on Perrin and pivots to accusing Liberal senators of misconduct.
I think to the taxpayers, it is a pretty dirty deal.
- misdirectedEthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The answer evades the request for the cheque and attacks Liberal senators instead.
Not only is there the question of Liberal Senator Mac Harb ripping off $50,000, but on top of that, we, of course, have Liberal Senator Pana Merchant.
- deflectedEthicsMr. Craig Scott (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The response uses sarcasm and avoids addressing the claimed contradiction about the fund.
can I tell you a secret? Do you promise you will not tell anybody?
- deflectedEthicsMr. Craig Scott (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The answer refers back to a prior non-response instead of clarifying which secretary told the truth.
if the hon. member wants to know the answer, he should look to the previous response to his question.
- deflectedEthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The reply shifts to general party practices and attacks the NDP without addressing the cheque or fund.
I do not know if they want to stand up in the House of Commons and demand an inquiry into their own party financing
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). loaded question.The answer pivots to jobs and NDP inaction rather than addressing the Senate scandal accountability question.
the Conservative yardstick for moving forward and going into the 2015 campaign is our demonstrated record of results for Canadians
- answeredEthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.The response directly states that an investigation is underway and information will go to authorities.
an investigation is already under way. The Auditor General is looking into this matter
- answeredEthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). loaded question.The answer addresses the question by reiterating the ongoing investigative process.
there is a process in place and all the information will be made available to the investigating authorities.
- deflectedEthicsMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). loaded question.The reply restates the existence of a partisan fund and redirects to the economy instead of answering about reimbursement.
The hon. member should focus on the economy and job creation.
- answeredEthicsMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (NDP) asked Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative). substantive question.The answer gives a clear yes-or-no response to the specific question about discussion of using the fund.
- deflectedEthicsMr. Nathan Cullen (NDP) asked James Moore (Conservative). rhetorical question.Answer ignores scandals and pivots to NDP criticism and Conservative plans.
We have a plan. They have noise.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.Answer dodges the cheque question by attacking Liberals on Mac Harb.
What taxpayers really want to know is when Mac Harb will be writing a $50,000 cheque to repay the money he stole from Canadian taxpayers.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.Answer shifts to unrelated Liberal and other senator issues instead of documents or cheque.
We also want to see Senator Merchant and her $1.7-million fund that she has sheltered from paying taxes in Canada.
- misdirectedEthicsMs. Yvonne Jones (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). loaded question.Answer evades responsibility question by demanding a Liberal repayment cheque.
we would like to see a cheque for $50,000 from Mac Harb back to the taxpayers for the money he ripped off
- deflectedAerospace IndustryMs. Hélène LeBlanc (NDP) asked Christian Paradis (Conservative). substantive question.Answer praises Hadfield and touts record but never addresses cuts or the meeting.
our government remains committed to keeping Canada at the forefront of the space industry.
- deflectedAerospace IndustryMr. Dan Harris (NDP) asked Christian Paradis (Conservative). substantive question.Answer ignores cuts and research losses, focusing only on praise and past projects.
Canada has a strong record of support for Canada's space sector.
- misdirectedRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. Randall Garrison (NDP) asked Vic Toews (Conservative). substantive question.Answer defends record then attacks the asker and NDP for voting record.
who stood up to vote against it? That member and his party.
- deflectedRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (NDP) asked Vic Toews (Conservative). substantive question.Answer insults the member and accuses NDP of blocking reform without addressing civilian governance.
I may not have been blessed with the same intelligence she has, but I try to make up for it with hard work.
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.Answer redefines the policy change and attacks NDP instead of addressing hospital costs or reversing the decision.
We have ended gold-plated health benefits to false, rejected asylum claimants who have no legal right to be in Canada.
- deflectedCitizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.Answer avoids the question by challenging NDP position and shifting to provincial jurisdiction.
Is it the NDP's position that Canadian taxpayers should pay for the medical expenses of illegal migrants and failed asylum claimants who have no right to be in Canada?
- partly answeredNational DefenceJohn McKay (Liberal) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.Answer addresses the protection offer and seeks more information but does not confirm the privilege motion.
If the member has further information specific to this individual's case, I would be happy to receive it.
- deflectedNational DefenceJohn McKay (Liberal) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.Answer avoids confirming protection or career preservation and instead accuses the asker of scoring points.
Rather than trying to score political points on the floor of the House of Commons, everyone would be better off had the hon. member chosen to contact my office on behalf of this individual
- deflectedEmployment InsuranceMrs. Anne-Marie Day (NDP) asked Ms. Kellie Leitch (Conservative). substantive question.Answer ignores the review process question and pivots to job creation statistics.
We now have one million net new jobs since 2009, meaning fewer Canadians actually require employment insurance.
- deflectedEmployment InsuranceMs. Chris Charlton (NDP) asked Ms. Kellie Leitch (Conservative). substantive question.Answer defends the new tribunal but does not address access to documents or denial of information.
The new Social Security Tribunal will continue to provide a fair, fast and accessible appeals process for Canadians by eliminating duplication.
- answeredRadio-CanadaMauril Bélanger (Liberal) asked James Moore (Conservative). substantive question.Answer agrees with the principle and directs the member to raise it with Radio-Canada officials.
the member should communicate his idea directly to Hubert Lacroix and to the board of directors of Radio-Canada.
- answeredPrivacyMr. Jack Harris (NDP) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.Answer directly states that the program does not target Canadians and answers the yes/no question.
It is only targeting foreign threats, unless, of course, there is a request from an accompanying department under warrant, so the answer is no.
- deflectedSeniorsMr. François Pilon (NDP) asked Ms. Kellie Leitch (Conservative). substantive question.The answer promotes existing government programs without addressing the specific bill or proposal for funeral cost withdrawals.
We encourage the opposition to get on board and support us.
- deflectedPublic SafetyMrs. Maria Mourani (Bloc) asked Ms. Kellie Leitch (Conservative). substantive question.The answer refuses to address the specific grant rejection and shifts to general program encouragement and youth employment stats.
I will not comment with respect to the very specific application.
- deflectedRail TransportationMr. Bruce Hyer (Independent) asked Steven Fletcher (Conservative). substantive question.The answer highlights past investments and opposition votes but does not address restoring or expanding VIA Rail service.
Interestingly, all the investments we made, the opposition parties and the member voted against.