“Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are certainly not wrong to say that the composition of committees should reflect the composition of the House. It is true that, according to British parliamentary tradition, a majority in the House normally means a majority on committees. However, that does not mean we have to agree with how things are done. We understand that the government has a short fuse and wants to limit debate. Now, I would like the House leader opposite if he can share any recent examples, from either this Parliament or the provincial legislatures, of governments with very slim majorities that have used motions or gag orders to give themselves a supermajority on committees by adding two members instead of one. I would like him to explain why the government decided unilaterally to grant itself a much larger majority on committees than its majority in the House. I would like to know whether this is in keeping with British House traditions.”
Statement grade
F
The average of Signal, Relevance and Clarity.
Average 34 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 44%Positioning 56%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 37 wordsI would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions.Unearned certaintyPositioning · 47 wordsThis has served our country very well.We believe that Canada is the best country in the world.The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.PositioningOff pointVague promise
