Liberals seek prime minister's testimony on Duffy expenses

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
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Question assumes PM said he could not care less and demands personal ownership; answer shifts to general Senate responsibilities without addressing PM's role.I obviously urge the Senate to take its responsibilities and apply proper sanction to senators who have not respected the rules.
2. deflected
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Question presses PM on personal accountability for his office and staff; answer restates facts about others leaving caucus and urges Senate action.The consequence for that in our judgment should be that they be removed from the public payroll.
3. deflected
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Question asks for confirmation of RCMP document request to PMO; answer redirects to a letter sent to Duffy's lawyer instead.I think what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is a letter the RCMP has written, I gather, to the lawyer for Mr. Duffy, urging him to co-operate with the RCMP investigation.
4. answered
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Question demands yes-or-no confirmation on turning over documents; answer states directly that documents are being provided.as we have said since the beginning, we are helping the RCMP by turning over all of the documents.
5. deflected
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Question seeks yes-or-no commitment to table documents publicly; answer pivots to personal denial of knowledge rather than addressing tabling.I have been very clear. I did not know about any payment from Mr. Wright to Mr. Duffy, or about the story to deceive Canadians about that.
6. answered
   EthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). substantive question.Question asks whether fundraiser informed PM of the scheme between specific dates; answer gives a clear negative with timeline.As I have said repeatedly, I did not know anything about that until May 15.
7. misdirected
   EthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Question challenges double standard and demands testimony under oath; answer attacks Liberal senators instead of responding to the query.While we are talking about changing stories, it is interesting to hear the Liberal Party demanding some kind of sanction when, in fact, for the past two weeks Liberals have been doing everything in their power to protect the club over there in the Senate
8. misdirected
   EthicsMr. Justin Trudeau (Liberal) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Question highlights inconsistency on Gerstein and asks for testimony under oath; answer repeats attack on Liberal senators rather than addressing the demand.Talk about hypocrisy. Over the past two weeks, the Liberal Party has done everything in its power to protect senators who broke the rules.
9. answered
   EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper directly answers the yes/no question before shifting to unrelated points.
10. partly answered
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper addresses the presence fact but avoids confirming instructions and pivots to his own prior statements.I have already been clear about the facts around that.
11. deflected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper restates his general position without addressing the specific plan or yes/no question about the $32,000 arrangement.once again, my view from the beginning, conveyed to Mr. Duffy, was that he had no right to claim expenses from the Senate that he had not actually incurred out of his pocket.
12. misdirected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper turns to attacking Mulcair's own legal assistance instead of addressing accountability for Gerstein or the PMO.as we have said before, political parties do quite frequently provide legal assistance to members of their caucus in good standing, as in fact has been the case for the Leader of the Opposition
13. misdirected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper ignores the question about Wright lying and instead attacks Mulcair over party-paid legal costs.The Leader of the Opposition apparently has some difficulty with some legal assistance being provided to members of the Conservative caucus, but he apparently has no difficulty at all in getting literally six figures worth of legal assistance from his party
14. deflected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper repeats his earlier position without answering whether he was aware of the specific Gerstein plan.my position has been clear from the beginning.
15. deflected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper dismisses the question as baseless allegations rather than addressing Lecce's involvement.the Leader of the Opposition is now just throwing out names and making allegations against individuals without even the slightest piece of evidence.
16. deflected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.Harper restates Wright's responsibility without addressing why others who knew were not fired.Mr. Wright has acknowledged that these were his actions, that he took them himself using his own resources, and he executed them.
17. deflected
    EthicsThomas Mulcair (NDP) asked Stephen Harper (Conservative). loaded question.The answer avoids the questions about the wording change and who advised it, instead restating that no public funds were used and attacking Duffy and the Senate.It was Mr. Wright himself using his own resources who paid Mr. Duffy, and then obviously Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy allowed the Canadian public to be misled on what had actually occurred.
18. misdirected
    EthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer ignores the questions about Gerstein, the payment purpose and invoices, instead attacking Liberals for abstaining and defending the status quo.As we have been saying for weeks, the Liberals will fight really hard for the status quo, but when it comes to fighting for taxpayers, they abstain.
19. misdirected
    EthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer evades the questions about PMO briefing and counseling Duffy to lie, instead attacking Liberals for supporting disgraced senators.there they go again, standing up for Mike Duffy, standing up for these three disgraced senators and disgraced former Liberal senator, Mac Harb.
20. deflected
    EthicsRalph Goodale (Liberal) asked Mr. Paul Calandra (Conservative). substantive question.The answer gives a brief non-committal statement that avoids addressing the email chain, paper trail or document destruction concerns.we have said, and we will continue to say, that we will continue to work with authorities as they investigate this.
21. partly answered
    The EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (NDP) asked Leona Aglukkaq (Conservative). substantive question.The answer addresses the species at risk backlog claim by citing recent recovery documents posted but does not engage with the broader accusation of neglect.Thanks to our action, more than 60% of the recovery documents have been posted in the last three years.
22. partly answered
    The EnvironmentMr. François Choquette (NDP) asked Leona Aglukkaq (Conservative). substantive question.The answer cites funding increases and a new plan but does not address the specific concerns about reduced scientific capacity or implementation of recommendations.our government is committed to protecting and preserving our rich biodiversity, which is why budget 2012 increased funding for species at risk.
23. partly answered
    PensionsMr. Guy Caron (NDP) asked Kevin Sorenson (Conservative). substantive question.The answer acknowledges ongoing examination with provinces and shares concerns about burden but does not state support or opposition to the four principles.Canada pension plan reform continues to be examined by our government, in conjunction with our provincial counterparts.
24. deflected
    PensionsMr. Murray Rankin (NDP) asked Kevin Sorenson (Conservative). substantive question.The answer avoids explaining why reform is delayed, instead attacking the NDP proposal as risky without addressing the provinces' or experts' agreement.I can assure the House, the NDP's plan to double Canada pension premiums, while the economy is still fragile, is not a moderate proposal.
25. deflected
    National DefenceMr. Jack Harris (NDP) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.The answer quotes the ombudsman positively but avoids explaining why families aren't prioritized, instead urging support for government.I hope the hon. member will get on board and start supporting the government's effort to support the men and women in uniform.
26. misdirected
    National DefenceMs. Élaine Michaud (NDP) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.Responds by criticizing the questioner's voting record rather than outlining specific actions on housing.If she really wants to do something, she should start talking to her colleagues and quit voting against the billions of dollars that this government has expended to support the men and women in uniform and veterans in our country.
27. misdirected
    VeteransMr. Sylvain Chicoine (NDP) asked Julian Fantino (Conservative). substantive question.The response attacks the premise by suggesting the asker wants more deceased veterans instead of addressing eligibility issues.listening to that rhetoric, it is almost wishful thinking that we have more of our veterans deceased so there would be more money used.
28. misdirected
    VeteransMr. Peter Stoffer (NDP) asked Julian Fantino (Conservative). substantive question.Instead of addressing the exemption limit, it highlights the member's voting record against benefits.It is ironic the one thing that member has shown is that he consistently votes against the equipment our men and women need in theatre, and when they come home, that members votes against their benefits as veterans.
29. answered
    VeteransMs. Joyce Murray (Liberal) asked Rob Nicholson (Conservative). substantive question.Directly explains the government's actions on mental health support for soldiers.This is why we have doubled our investment in mental health services and doubled the number of health care workers in the Canadian Armed Forces.
30. misdirected
    VeteransMs. Joyce Murray (Liberal) asked Julian Fantino (Conservative). substantive question.The answer promotes government programs but criticizes the opposition's voting instead of explaining delays in benefits processing.The Liberale members should join us because they consistently vote against our programs.
31. deflected
    PovertyMrs. Sadia Groguhé (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.The response highlights positive economic indicators but does not address proposed measures to reduce food bank usage.the OECD study, which shows that Canada is one of the best countries in the world when it comes to quality of life.
32. misdirected
    PovertyMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (NDP) asked Jason Kenney (Conservative). substantive question.Dismisses the question and references historical NDP governance in Ontario rather than current actions on food insecurity.If the member wants to talk about food banks, I remember how busy they were during the NDP government in Ontario.
33. misdirected
    Veterans AffairsJim Karygiannis (Liberal) asked Julian Fantino (Conservative). loaded question.The answer attacks the opposition leader instead of addressing the office closures.we do agree on the fact that both he and I feel that his leader is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country.
34. answered
    Foreign AffairsMs. Hélène Laverdière (NDP) asked John Baird (Conservative). substantive question.The minister affirms commitment to collaborate on the issue raised.I am very committed to working with my colleague and friend opposite on what we might do to provide that support and assistance to these individuals.
35. partly answered
    TaxationMs. Peggy Nash (NDP) asked Jim Flaherty (Conservative). substantive question.The response justifies the policy change without committing to reversal.We have simply eliminated an outdated tax subsidy from the 1970s, when the tax system was very different.
36. deflected
    Government AdvertisingMr. Brent Rathgeber (Independent) asked Tony Clement (Conservative). substantive question.The answer defends advertising generally and notes deficit reduction instead of addressing the ad effectiveness or waste.I am surprised the hon. member did not key in on another important fact that was found in those documents as well: the budget deficit is $6.9 billion lower than projected.