Commons debates budget bill amid Senate scandal questions

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
   EthicsMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer sidesteps the contradiction in the Prime Minister's statements by focusing on Wright's responsibility instead.Nigel Wright has accepted sole and full responsibility for his actions.
2. deflected
   EthicsMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer avoids specifying the number by redirecting to external documents without engaging the question.I would refer the hon. member to affidavits that were recently filed in court.
3. deflected
   EthicsMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer repeats the referral to affidavits and Wright's responsibility rather than addressing how many the Prime Minister knew about.I would refer the hon. member to affidavits that were recently filed in court.
4. deflected
   EthicsMs. Nycole Turmel (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer ignores the request for clarification on dismissal versus resignation and restates Wright's responsibility.Nigel Wright has accepted full responsibility for his actions.
5. misdirected
   EthicsMs. Nycole Turmel (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer shifts to general expectations for senators and attacks Liberals in the Senate instead of addressing the specific deal offered to Brazeau.we have been clear right from the beginning that we expect that these senators would accept accountability for what they have done.
6. deflected
   EthicsDominic LeBlanc (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer discusses the audit outcome and Senate motion but does not explain the Prime Minister's changing statements on expenses.There was an audit that was completed that showed that these expenses were not in line.
7. deflected
   EthicsDominic LeBlanc (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer reiterates Wright's responsibility and the need for Senate action without clarifying the timeline of the Prime Minister's knowledge or statements.Nigel Wright has accepted responsibility for what he has done.
8. deflected
   EthicsDominic LeBlanc (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer restates that the Prime Minister would not have approved the arrangement but avoids addressing why he should testify under oath.Nigel Wright has been quite clear with respect to who he brought into his confidence on this matter
9. deflected
   EthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates general expectations for senators without addressing whether the PMO knew of the deal.I am surprised to learn that the NDP and the Liberals do not have the exact same standard.
10. misdirected
    EthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the NDP leader's popularity instead of confirming Arthur Hamilton's role.If he does believe everything he reads, then he would have to believe that since his leader took control of his party, he is the least popular federal leader
11. deflected
    EthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer refers to affidavits without addressing Hamilton's involvement or the money transfer.Mr. Speaker, again, I would refer the hon. member to affidavits that were filed.
12. partly answered
    EthicsMr. Charlie Angus (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses Wright's accountability but ignores the severance and EI question.Nigel Wright has accepted accountability for what he has done.
13. deflected
    EthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer pivots to Senate accountability and attacks the NDP instead of addressing the Ray Novak question.Now that he has laid it out there, it would probably be an appropriate time for me to remind him why he does not want to talk about 29
14. deflected
    EthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer repeats Senate independence and expectations without explaining why Carignan remains leader.At the same time, the Prime Minister has been very clear, as has a majority of the Conservative caucus, that we expect these senators to be accountable
15. misdirected
    EthicsMr. Alexandre Boulerice (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the member's sovereignty donations instead of confirming Hamilton's role.At the same time, he went back to his province and started making donations, not once, not twice, and I could go all the way up to 29 times, to a party that would break up this country.
16. deflected
    EthicsMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer states Senate independence without addressing whether the PMO asked Stewart Olsen to step down.I understand that the member has only been here for a couple of years, but the Senate does undertake its activities independently.
17. misdirected
    EthicsMs. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the opposition parties instead of addressing the specific senator's expenses.It is only the New Democrats and the Liberals who do not expect that same high standard.
18. deflected
    EthicsMs. Judy Foote (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids specifics on exemption or severance amount by giving a general statement.Mr. Wright will receive what is required under the law.
19. answered
    Aboriginal AffairsMr. Romeo Saganash (NDP) asked Bernard Valcourt (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly explains the lease renewal process and why it was not renewed.The university was eligible to submit a proposal but chose not to do so.
20. answered
    Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (NDP) asked Bernard Valcourt (Conservative). loaded question.The answer refutes the premise and explains the new statutory obligation in the proposal.If she cares to read the proposal, she will find out that for the first time in a hundred and some years in Canada, this proposal casts an obligation on the minister to pay the cost of education
21. partly answered
    HousingMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (NDP) asked Candice Bergen (Conservative). substantive question.The answer claims continued investment but does not address renewing the specific agreements.
22. misdirected
    HousingMr. Matthew Kellway (NDP) asked Candice Bergen (Conservative). substantive question.The answer criticizes the NDP rather than addressing the housing crisis measures.We are not just talking, as the NDP always wants to do: more bureaucracy, more talk.
23. answered
    The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (NDP) asked Joe Oliver (Conservative). substantive question.The answer provides safety statistics and details on increased inspections and audits.Our government increased the number of pipeline inspections and audits to give Canada a world-class safety system.
24. misdirected
    The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (NDP) asked Joe Oliver (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the questioner's party voting record instead of addressing pipeline safety actions.that question is a bit rich coming from a party that voted against increased pipeline inspections and fines for polluters.
25. deflected
    The EnvironmentMs. Linda Duncan (NDP) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). loaded question.The answer restates general policies on assessments and consultations without addressing the specific exemption or first nations duties mentioned.We have made environmental protection laws stricter while making environmental assessments more efficient and more effective.
26. deflected
    The EnvironmentMr. François Choquette (NDP) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids justifying the exemption decision and instead attacks the opposition with an unrelated blueberry example.Unlike the opposition, which wants to waste taxpayers' money on assessing blueberries, our government is ensuring that resources are focused on projects with potential environmental effects.
27. partly answered
    Canadian HeritageStéphane Dion (Liberal) asked Shelly Glover (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses the music fund claim by denying cuts but does not explain the elimination of the creators' assistance component.Our government did not make cuts to the program.
28. misdirected
    The EconomyMs. Joyce Murray (Liberal) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the asker personally instead of addressing the economic record or middle-class issues raised.I do not know where the member has been, but she has not been in Canada, obviously.
29. answered
    National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (NDP) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly states that no decision has been made on next steps for delivery.We have not decided yet on next steps.
30. answered
    National DefenceMs. Élaine Michaud (NDP) asked Diane Finley (Conservative). substantive question.The answer directly states that no decision has been made on next steps for delivery.We have not decided yet on next steps.
31. deflected
    TelecommunicationsMr. Frank Valeriote (Liberal) asked Maxime Bernier (Conservative). substantive question.The answer changes the subject to cellphone rates instead of addressing the tower approval process and local input concerns.I am glad to see the opposition asking questions about one of its own priorities, namely access to truly competitive cellphone rates.
32. partly answered
    Air TransportationMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (NDP) asked Lisa Raitt (Conservative). substantive question.The answer acknowledges the meeting and explains the legal limit but does not commit to reviewing the specific Sherbrooke request.Although Sherbrooke wants to be part of it, it has to go through a process.
33. partly answered
    The EnvironmentMr. Jonathan Tremblay (NDP) asked Mr. Randy Kamp (Conservative). substantive question.The answer mentions ongoing research but ignores the specific question about cuts and who will conduct it.researchers from DFO have been working with our partners to study beluga whales in the St. Lawrence.
34. deflected
    Intergovernmental RelationsMr. Jean-François Fortin (Bloc) asked Peter MacKay (Conservative). substantive question.The response avoids committing to non-interference and instead notes no intention to reopen debate.The federal government has no intention of reopening the debate.
35. misdirected
    Rail TransportationMr. Bruce Hyer (Independent) asked Lisa Raitt (Conservative). substantive question.The answer sidesteps the question about nationalization and instead discusses rail safety measures.I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what our government has done on the issue of rail safety.
36. partly answered
    Parks CanadaMr. Dean Del Mastro (Independent) asked Mr. Colin Carrie (Conservative). substantive question.The response acknowledges the member's work and commits to collaboration but does not address creating a specific management structure.I would like to commit to my colleague across the way that we will continue working with him and other MPs in regard to this.
37. misdirected
    EthicsMr. Nathan Cullen (NDP) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer diverts into a partisan story instead of clarifying the employment status.It is the story of angry Tom and the three chairs.
38. misdirected
    Points of OrderMs. Elizabeth May (Green) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The response ignores the interruption complaint and instead accuses the member of an ethics violation.when the member in question stands to talk about ethics, I would remind the House that she received a $5,000 watch and did not report it.