Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jagsharan Singh Mahal

134 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could acknowledge the hypocrisy we see coming from the Conservative Party. On the one hand, Conservatives talk about the issue of affordability, yet when the government proposes initiatives like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit program, the Conservatives vote against it. When it comes to the national school food program, which, as has been pointed out by the government whip, is feeding hundreds of thousands of young children, the Conservatives vote against it. There are a number of measures that the government has taken to deal with the issue of affordability because we understand the need. However, the Conservatives continue to vote against those measures. Why the hypocrisy?”
Statement grade
A+
Average 100 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Reasoning 78%The ask 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 104 wordsthe member opposite can say that we are hypocrites when we oppose the subsidies, but those do not go to the base of the issues. It is not the government’s job, in a G7 country, to provide people with these kinds of perks. The job of the government should be to make sure that the people of the country have good-paying jobs so they can afford their own food and make choices about which food their children take to school. They should not be dependent upon the school principal’s choosing whether they want to feed some chocolate or other non-nutritious food to the kids. The ask · 30 wordsThat being said, the need of the time is to scrap all the taxes on fuel, gas and diesel so Canadians can feel relaxed for the rest of the year.

Analysed on