Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Anthony Housefather

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-04-23

114 words · 3 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Dave Epp (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, at least the minister addressed my question. The response we just heard, actually, is typical and it exemplifies the government’s approach to agriculture. I recently participated in a poll from a national polling firm, answering the question of how I felt the government values agriculture and the agri-food sector. Here is how I responded. The sector provides $150 billion in GDP. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, larger than auto and mining combined, and it provides for one in nine jobs in Canada. Let us look at the federal budget, $498 billion. Call it $500 billion. Strip away those nine zeros and just think about the number 500. The federal budget investment in AAFC is $3.6 billion. If we get rid of the nine zeros, that’s 3.6. That is less than 2%. That is how much the government values agriculture, less than 2% investment in the largest manufacturing sector in this country.”

Statement grade

D+

Average 50 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Positioning 30%Claims 30%Promise 40%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 34 wordsI would respectfully disagree with my colleague. Not only does this government value agriculture and the incredible role that farmers play and that other people involved in the agricultural sector play across the country, PositioningClaims · 34 wordsbut we have continued to engage with the industry to ensure that we best respond to the needs that it faces, given the very challenging circumstances that we face right now in the world.Vague promise Promise · 46 wordsWe will continue to do that, Vague promiseand I will undertake to work with that member and to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, to make sure that the member’s views are considered in the larger lens of our agricultural policy.Off pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 64

2 of 6 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I would respectfully disagree with my colleague.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Not only does this government value agriculture and the incredible role that farmers play and that other people involved in the agricultural sector play across the country,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 59

1 of 6 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and I will undertake to work with that member and to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary, to make sure that the member’s views are considered in the larger lens of our agricultural policy.”A promise to consider the member’s views later rather than an answer to why research stations are closing or how the sector is valued.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 27

3 of 6 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we have continued to engage with the industry”Names no meeting, measure, or outcome to show what the engagement consisted of or achieved.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We will continue to do that”A commitment with no actor beyond the speaker, no date, and no success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “to make sure that the member’s views are considered”Despite named colleagues, it sets no date, step, or standard for what ‘considered’ would mean.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-09-15