Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Jennifer McKelvie

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-04-30

82 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Grant Jackson (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, that is pretty much par for the course with the Liberal government, unfortunately. The question was specifically about food production, and I am not sure the Liberal member across the way used the two-word phrase “food production” at any point in that entire answer, which is par for the course, even more sadly, for the agriculture minister in responding to my questions during question period. He and his parliamentary secretary are clearly too busy tonight to answer these questions. It is an important measure that we need to be addressing because this country needs to grow more food to meet our domestic needs, to bring prices down for Canadians, as well as to continue to feed the world, which so many people from my region and across the Prairies do. It is very disappointing that the Liberals have no plan to increase food production in Canada.”

Statement grade

Average 63 / 100

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

Claims 45%Promise 13%Positioning 41%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 12 wordswe know affordability is the single most pressing issue for many Canadians.Partly on pointUnearned certainty Promise · 11 wordsThe government is committed to developing a national food security strategy.¹Vague promise Claims · 25 wordsThis strategy would make it easier for Canadians to access affordable and nutritious food, and build on Canada’s resilience and capacity to meet domestic needs. Positioning · 34 wordsFrom the beginning, we have placed people and affordability at the centre of our economic plan because we know the pressures are real and demand immediate action.Partly on pointUnearned certainty We believe in a Canada for all.PositioningOff point

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 · 54

2 of 8 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 “From the beginning, we have placed people and affordability at the centre of our economic plan because we know the pressures are real and demand immediate action.”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 “We believe in a Canada for all.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 63

3 of 8 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 comment put to the member, and the question on notice.

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 “we know affordability is the single most pressing issue for many Canadians.”It speaks to affordability in general, not the food production point raised.
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 “From the beginning, we have placed people and affordability at the centre of our economic plan because we know the pressures are real and demand immediate action.”It is about the government’s general affordability plan, not food production.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We believe in a Canada for all.”It is a general slogan about Canada, not the food production point under discussion.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 · 36

3 of 8 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “we know affordability is the single most pressing issue for many Canadians”“we know” asserts certainty in place of any source or evidence.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “committed to developing a national food security strategy”A commitment with no date, measure or success condition, attributed to the government the speaker represents.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “we know the pressures are real and demand immediate action”“we know” substitutes assertion for a source or backing.

Claims · 1

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“The government is committed to developing a national food security strategy”The Government of Canada is committed to developing a national food security strategy.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20