Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Sean Fraser

Liberal on Indigenous Affairs 2026-05-04

143 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Jamie Schmale (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, in 2018, the Liberals and the NDP of British Columbia made a deliberate decision to instruct their lawyers not to defend private property rights in the Cowichan case. Now, years later, that same case is before the courts on appeal, and the government finds itself unable to make the very argument that Canadian homeowners expect, which is that their private property rights come first. How does the Prime Minister expect to win, on appeal, the protection of private property rights within the city of Richmond with an argument he is unable to make?”

Statement grade

Average 93 / 100

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

Procedure 6%Claims 41%Reasoning 20%Promise 8%The ask 24%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 wordsit is important that we correct the factual record.Procedure Claims · 59 wordsSince 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate.¹ More recently, we have decided to support the Montrose application, ²which is all about the rights of private property owners and would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial.³ Reasoning · 22 wordsWe are able to walk down the path of reconciliation and protect the rights of private property owners at the same time. Promise · 11 wordsOur next argument will be presented when we appeal the decision, Reasoning · 7 wordsbecause we disagree with the superior courts. The ask · 35 wordsI hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government’s position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 of 2 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “it is important that we correct the factual record.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 81

1 of 2 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 “I hope all members of the House can move forward with the full appreciation of the federal government’s position when it comes to the protection of property rights in British Columbia and across the country.”A closing appeal for members to accept the government’s position, adding no fact or reason on the appeal question.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 3

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“Since 2017, the federal government has been asking the court to notify private landowners of the case so that they may participate”In the Cowichan case, the federal government has since 2017 been asking the court to notify private landowners so they may participate.search
2“we have decided to support the Montrose application”The federal government has decided to support the Montrose application in the Cowichan case.search
3“would allow them to potentially advance arguments that they were not able to make at trial”The Montrose application would potentially allow private property owners to advance arguments they were not able to make at trial in the Cowichan case.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20