“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is spending more time blaming Conservatives for the Liberals’ own failures than proposing realistic solutions in his address today, which is a typical desperate Liberal tactic. The member stated that they would vigorously defend private property with every viable argument. Members may have noticed, however, that he could not say “every argument” because he knows full well that the government lawyers’ hands are tied behind their backs. They cannot use the extinguishment argument in court. What is the Liberals’ plan to vigorously defend it when their hands are tied behind their backs and they cannot even address title and private property, without the extinguishment argument?”
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.
Positioning 13%Reasoning 60%Claims 27%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 17 wordsI am so pleased the member opposite chose to hang his entire argument on the word “viable”.PositioningReasoning · 78 wordsThe whole premise of our legal system is based on viable argument, on the fact that we make arguments that can stand up in court and that we win or lose decisions on the basis of the quality of our arguments and our understanding of the law.I would invite the member opposite to look at the agreements with Musqueam that he claims were done in secret to understand the Cowichan decision and the basis of the appeals.1Claims · 35 wordsWhat he would see is a government that is vigorously defending private property rights and doing the work that is required to run this through the systems designed by our Constitution, which are the courts.
