“Mr. Speaker, when the Artemis mission was on the far side of the moon, it was still closer to answering the question than the parliamentary secretary just was. I spoke about very real concerns, such as the price of fuel and groceries, and I mentioned a number of ways the Liberal government is not being respectful of taxpayer money. Instead, she came in here with a canned four-minute statement on just one of the many line items I mentioned, showing that the Liberals are not even prepared to rise in the House to defend their reckless spending. A general contractor in my riding is saying that, without relief on the price of fuel, he will find himself forced to lay off employees. A man in Central Elgin, a struggling parent, says he is putting groceries on his credit card because that is the only way to pay for them. Another one says she has to move because she cannot afford the cost of living in a place that she always thought would be affordable. Why are the Liberals ignoring these Canadians?”
Statement grade
B
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 81. The grade is held to 77, 30 above Relevance.
77 / 100, held down by Relevance
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 73%Reasoning 7%Aside 20%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 62 wordsonly a Conservative would say that spending 2% of GDP on defence is a waste.Being from a military family, I find that, quite frankly, incredibly offensive.1The capabilities that this investment will allow us to have are incredibly important to not only our military response, but also our domestic response, whether that be wildfires, flooding or so on and so forth.Reasoning · 6 wordsTo assume otherwise is absolutely incorrect.Partly on pointAside · 17 wordsBy the way, seeing that it is Monday evening, I just want to say, go, Habs, go!Aside
