← Back to the statement
Statement grade
Not graded: fewer than 4 clauses beyond the address. The scores are shown; a grade would say little. Not graded
Signal
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
48 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
79 / 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 81% Promise 19%
Structure · 3 steps
Claims · 2
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Chair, Claims · 39 words I believe that the member was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when many people testified at that committee when the bill was going through.1 2 I believe he already had the answers at that point. Promise · 9 words Again, we will monitor what happens in the future. Partly on point Vague promise
At a glance
Lost points for Partly on point ×3 Vague promise Didn't answer None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 100
0 of 4 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 · 48
3 of 4 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 → “I believe that the member was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when many people testified at that committee when the bill was going through.” About the member’s past role at committee testimony on the bill, not whether the minister considered excluding distant-ancestor claims.
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 → “I believe he already had the answers at that point.” Suggests the member already has answers, but does not say whether the minister considered such an exclusion.
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 → “Again, we will monitor what happens in the future.” Speaks to monitoring the future, not to what was considered when proposing the bill.
Respect · 100
0 of 4 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 · 79
1 of 4 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 monitor what happens in the future” A commitment with no measure, date or success condition for what monitoring involves.
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 member was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration” Brad Redekopp was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration while Bill C-3 was going through committee. search 2 “many people testified at that committee when the bill was going through” Many witnesses testified at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration during its study of Bill C-3. search
