Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Maggie Chi

Liberal on Health 2026-05-08

56 words · 2 sentences · 2 clauses

Replying to Michael Cooper (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the previous government is the same old Liberal government, and the buck stops with the minister. However, the minister has admitted that she asked no questions as 300 million tax dollars went up in smoke. In addition to the CEO, several other executives were paid handsomely and walked away with $60,000- and $70,000-bonuses. Who else got rich while taxpayers got hosed as the minister was asleep at the switch?”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 56 wordsI will reiterate that the program was intended for pharmacies and clinicians to do e-prescribing.¹ After consultation with and requests from provinces and territories, when it became clear that the uptake was not there, our new government decided to end the funding to the program and redirect resources to make sure that it benefits all Canadians.²Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 47

2 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 will reiterate that the program was intended for pharmacies and clinicians to do e-prescribing.”Describes what the program was for, not who benefited or who is responsible.
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 “After consultation with and requests from provinces and territories, when it became clear that the uptake was not there, our new government decided to end the funding to the program and redirect resources to make sure that it benefits all Canadians.”Repeats the government’s decision to end funding, without answering who received the bonuses or accountability.

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 · 2

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 program was intended for pharmacies and clinicians to do e-prescribing”The PrescribeIT program was intended for pharmacies and clinicians to do e-prescribing.search
2“our new government decided to end the funding to the program”The government decided to end funding to the PrescribeIT program.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20