All sittings← 2013-10-282013-10-30 →
Tuesday, October 29, 2013 · sitting No. 10
Commons debates omnibus budget bill as opposition presses PM on Senate scandal
The House spent most of the day on second reading of Bill C-4, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2. Conservative MP Gerald Keddy told members the legislation would keep Canada focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity while the Canada Revenue Agency advanced that agenda. NDP MP Dennis Bevington said the bill altered the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act in a way that ignored two years of community planning in the Northwest Territories, and Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux criticized the use of omnibus bills to alter many statutes at once.
In Question Period, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair asked why the Prime Minister had changed his account of Nigel Wright's departure from the Prime Minister's Office. Prime Minister Stephen Harper replied that Wright had acted inappropriately and was told he no longer worked for him. Mulcair also asked how many cheques were involved in arrangements with Senator Duffy, and Harper said the Conservative Party had reimbursed some legal expenses as a regular practice.
Later statements and questions touched on the Canada-European Union trade agreement and rail safety. Conservative MP Robert Sopuck said the deal would give Manitoba companies access to a $17-trillion market, while NDP MP Linda Duncan pressed the government to use regulatory powers rather than emergency orders to prevent rail incidents.
Decided that day
- C-4 passed second reading and referred to Finance committee
- C-9 introduced and passed second reading
- Opposition amendment to the main motion defeated
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 · 2013-10-29
66Bills Move Forward Amid Ethics and DodgesThe House spent most of its time on the Economic Action Plan bill and ethics, yet still advanced two pieces of legislation. Question Period produced few direct answers while one government motion passed and one opposition amendment failed.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
Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House the Canada-Europe trade agreement was the biggest deal Canada had ever made and tabled the summary of the final negotiated results.
Read the exchangeRail Transportation
NDP MP Linda Duncan asked why more than half a dozen measures recommended by the Transportation Safety Board two decades earlier had still not been implemented.
Read the exchangeEmployees' Voting Rights Act
Conservative MP Blaine Calkins moved second reading of Bill C-525 and said the legislation would ensure union certification required an absolute majority of all workers in the bargaining unit rather than a majority of those voting.
Read the exchangePetitions
Conservative MP Joy Smith presented petitions calling for permanent displays on the Holodomor and Canada's first national internment operations at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.
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
- answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Directly denies any change of story before restating events.
there has been no change of story.
- answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Clarifies the exact action taken with Wright to reconcile the versions.
Mr. Wright acted inappropriately, and for that reason, I very clearly explained to him that he no longer worked for me.
- partly answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Begins explaining the reimbursement but the response is cut off.
Mr. Duffy makes reference to the fact that the party reimbursed him for some legal expenses.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Explains the source of funds then pivots to criticizing Duffy instead of naming who knew.
that was a payment from the Conservative fund to Mr. Duffy for his legal expenses.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). rhetorical question.Dismisses the sarcastic question and returns to previously stated facts.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the member is referring to.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Rejects the premise of the question and does not address testifying under oath.
the entire premise of that question is incorrect.
- deflectedEthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Repeats prior statements on Wright and Duffy without addressing the request to testify.
Mr. Wright was told that his actions were inappropriate and he no longer works for me.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Ignores the direct accusation and call to testify, redirecting to Duffy's expenses.
once again, the real issue is that Mr. Duffy accepted reimbursements for expenses he never incurred.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids naming anyone in the PMO and instead blames Duffy and Wright for the story.
the story that Mr. Duffy had reimbursed his own expenses when, in fact, he had not was the story of Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright.
- misdirectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the questioner personally about past events in Quebec instead of addressing the PMO's role.
I imagine the fact that he sat for 17 years and knew about bribery in Quebec explains why he does not see this, but it is crystal clear.
- partly answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses the Conservative Party's role in expenses but does not confirm or deny whether the PMO asked the lawyer to pay.
the Conservative Party decides whether or not to cover the expenses of MPs and senators.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.The answer restates the Prime Minister's earlier position on inappropriate expenses without addressing the request to the party lawyer.
When Mr. Duffy first came to me when we first addressed this, and we only addressed this one time within February, I told him his expenses were inappropriate.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.The answer avoids explaining why Stewart Olsen remains while shifting to a general statement about Senate review and unfounded accusations.
the fact that some senators have done something wrong is not a licence for the hon. member to make accusations without foundation against all kinds of people
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer states the time for apologies has passed and calls for Senate action without confirming support for Carignan's negotiation.
my position is very clear and the time for apologizing is past.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer begins to note Senate independence but cuts off without addressing why Carignan remains in his role.
once again, the Senate, as we all know, is an independent body—
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer reiterates that apologies and settlements are past without confirming whether similar deals were offered to Wallin or Duffy.
once again, the time for apologies or any kind of settlement of this, in our judgment, has long passed.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates the government's position on expenses without addressing actions taken regarding the specific email.
Mr. Duffy had collected expenses that he had not incurred.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer changes the subject to an unrelated personal anecdote attacking the opposition instead of addressing confidence in the chief of staff.
Let me tell the House another story about my father.
- misdirectedEthicsMr. Marc Garneau (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer continues the unrelated pizza story and attacks Liberals and New Democrats rather than addressing the question about reporting to the Law Society.
Only Liberals and New Democrats are trying to make victims out of these senators who stole from the Canadian people.
- partly answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses the general issue of multiple residences and expenses but does not specify how many senators or name them.
The fact of the matter is that having more than one residence does not entitle one to claim expenses one did not actually incur.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids confirming the quote's accuracy and instead restates that Duffy collected inappropriate expenses.
The truth of the matter is that Mr. Duffy is in difficulty here because he took expenditures for which we all know he should never have been reimbursed.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer reframes the question as arguing Duffy is a victim and restates the expenses issue without addressing the quote or LeBreton's resignation.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is trying to argue that Mr. Duffy was being threatened with some kind of inappropriate sanctions.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids the question about notes to the RCMP and instead identifies perpetrators and restates sanctions.
the senator in question has been accused of absolutely nothing.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer restates the position that Duffy should repay expenses himself without addressing how many people were involved in the initial plan.
our position is that Mr. Duffy should repay his inappropriate Senate expense claims.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper generalizes about party legal aid instead of addressing why his office asked lawyers to pay Duffy's expenses.
political parties do provide legal assistance to their members from time to time.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Answer restates talking points on Wright and repayment while ignoring the question on firings.
once again, on our side there is one person responsible for this deception, and that person is Mr. Wright, by his own admission.
- misdirectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper attacks Duffy's credibility rather than addressing changes in the PM's story or lack of documents.
The leader of the NDP thinks he can believe Mr. Duffy, who said on national television that he took out a loan against his assets to repay money he had taken inappropriately from the taxpayers
- misdirectedEthicsMs. Judy Foote (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.Calandra ignores salary and benefits questions and pivots to attacking Liberals on unrelated Senate issues.
How can we ever expect accountability from the Liberal Party?
- deflectedEthicsMr. Scott Andrews (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). loaded question.Answer changes subject to economy and jobs instead of addressing the double standard on suspensions.
what are we talking about here? We are talking about the fact that the Liberals and the NDP do not want to talk about all of the things we are doing with respect to moving the economy forward.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper restates Senate audit facts and calls for sanctions while avoiding the question on limiting truth.
the Senate has conducted audits on Senate expenses and continues to do so.
- answeredEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Harper directly states the government does not defend Duffy and reiterates repayment demand.
once again, the government does not defend the actions of Mr. Duffy.
- partly answeredNatural ResourcesRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Joe Oliver (Conservative). substantive question.Oliver addresses Keystone benefits and GHG analysis but ignores the request for a credible environmental message.
the Keystone XL pipeline would enhance national security, and create tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity on both sides of the border.
- deflectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.The answer denies the premise without addressing the request for regret and pivots to general responsibilities.
The reality is that in a case like this, the prime minister has the responsibility to demand corrective action and when corrective action is not taken, to ensure accountability.
- misdirectedEthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.The answer attacks the NDP's record instead of addressing whether Arthur Hamilton will be fired.
Let us talk about how the NDP deals with these sorts of things.
- deflectedEthicsMr. Jean-François Fortin (Bloc) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer discusses Senate reform and opposition parties but does not address the request for an independent public inquiry.
They are fed up with the fact that the NDP and Liberals are teaming up to defend three senators and former disgraced Liberal Senator Mac Harb because they took money that they were not entitled to.