← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 82. The grade is held to 76, 30 above Relevance. 76 / 100, held down by Relevance
Signal
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
46 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
82 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 86% Promise 14%
Structure · 4 steps
Claims · 1
Echo · 4 repeated lines
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 12 words preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance. Promise · 14 words This is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property. Vague promise Claims · 73 words We believed then and we continue to believe now that those potentially affected by a decision of this magnitude deserve to be informed and heard. This is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. 1 This is why we have supported an application that would allow Montrose, a private property owner in the area , to present evidence that was not before— Partly on point
At a glance
Lost points for Partly on point ×6 Vague promise Didn't answer None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate. Echo ×4 “That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.” Said 4 times by 2 members. Every time it was said → Echo ×4 “That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.” Said 4 times by 2 members. Every time it was said → Echo ×3 “A private property owner in the area.” Said 3 times by 3 members. Every time it was said → Echo ×3 “Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance.” Said 3 times by 2 members. Every time it was said →
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 100
0 of 7 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 · 46
6 of 7 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 point put to the member, and the motion under debate.
Partly on point 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 → “preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance.” Restates the importance of private property without saying what arguments will be used.
Partly on point 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 why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.” Repeats the commitment to advance all viable arguments but names none, which was what was asked.
Partly on point 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 believed then and we continue to believe now that those potentially affected by a decision of this magnitude deserve to be informed and heard.” About notifying those affected by the decision, not the legal arguments planned for the Supreme Court.
Partly on point 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 why,” A connective lead-in to the 2017 notification point, not an answer to the question.
Partly on point 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 → “as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.” About Canada’s 2017 position on notifying landowners, not the arguments to be used now.
Partly on point 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 why we have supported an application that would allow Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to present evidence that was not before—” About supporting one owner’s evidence application, not the government’s legal arguments in the appeal.
Respect · 100
0 of 7 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 · 82
1 of 7 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.
Vague promise A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible. What the tags mean → “we will advance all viable legal arguments” The commitment names no measure, date, or success condition, leaving nothing to check later.
Echo · 4 repeated lines
Words members of Parliament keep repeating, found by the same rule for every member. No score depends on it.
“That is why we advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.” Said 4 times by 2 members. Every time it was said → “That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued that private landowners should be notified of the litigation.” Said 4 times by 2 members. Every time it was said → “A private property owner in the area.” Said 3 times by 3 members. Every time it was said → “Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance.” Said 3 times by 2 members. Every time it was said →
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 “as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation” In 2017, Canada argued before the court in the Cowichan Tribes litigation that private landowners should be notified of the case. search
