Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Marjorie Michel

Liberal on Health 2026-04-27

35 words · 3 sentences · 3 clauses

Replying to Dan Mazier (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals gave $300 million to Canada Health Infoway for PrescribeIT. The taxpayer-funded CEO, Michael Green, testified at committee that the Canada Health Infoway board terminated PrescribeIT, yet the health minister claimed it was the Liberals. Officials also revealed that the Liberals kept shovelling millions into PrescribeIT even after they knew it was failing. This $300-million scandal is not adding up. If the Liberals have nothing to hide, will they support our motion to call the Auditor General in to investigate PrescribeIT?”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 35 wordsPrescribeIT was always intended to become self-funded over time.¹ Rather than putting money toward a program that people were not using, the decision was made to end it.²Hidden agency This is how we save taxpayers’ money.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 4 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 48

3 of 4 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 question asked.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “PrescribeIT was always intended to become self-funded over time.”About the program’s original funding design, not the call for an Auditor General investigation.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “Rather than putting money toward a program that people were not using, the decision was made to end it.”Repeats the rationale for ending the program rather than addressing the requested investigation.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “This is how we save taxpayers’ money.”A general claim about saving taxpayer money, not a response to the investigation question.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 deductions are Respect

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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 44

1 of 4 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “the decision was made to end it”The passive hides who made the decision, which is the very point disputed in the exchange.

Claims · 2

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

1“PrescribeIT was always intended to become self-funded over time”PrescribeIT was always intended to become self-funded over time.search
2“the decision was made to end it”The decision was made to end the PrescribeIT program.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20