“Mr. Speaker, my question relates to litigation directive number 14, which I, again, have heard a lot of misinformation about, claiming that somehow the directive would preclude counsel for the Government of Canada from making every argument necessary to defend property rights. My understanding is that all the directive does is, if I can find the right words, require “a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.” Could my hon. colleague tell me of any instance where the Government of Canada should advance an argument that does not meet that criteria?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 96 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 89%Positioning 11%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 30 wordsI think the simple answer is no.I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there.Positioning · 8 wordsThey should choose to look at the facts.PositioningClaims · 32 wordsI know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.
