← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Respect and Clarity. Average 70 / 100
Signal
45 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
–
Not scored Viewing ↓
Respect
93 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
71 / 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.
Procedure 28% Claims 45% Positioning 20% The question 7%
Structure · 6 steps
Claims · 7
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 19 words I just want to poke holes in the justice minister’s argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16. Procedure Claims · 78 words We only debated this for two days at second reading, 1 and then we let it go on division so we could get it to the justice committee for study.2 We asked for eight meetings to actually do a proper study on this bill and to bring in the proper witnesses.3 The Liberals shut it down to only four meetings.4 We have only had one day to debate the bill at report stage, 5 and they are already moving closure.6 Procedure · 29 words My question is for the minister who wraps himself in this paper tiger, saying that we do not respect the process and that there has been plenty of debate. Procedure Positioning · 35 words We know that on the Liberal side, the only person who ever gets up and talks is the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever, 7 Unearned certainty but has said the very least. Positioning The question · 13 words Why does this minister hate democracy, Motive imputed and why is he undermining parliamentary processes?
At a glance
Lost points for Procedure ×2 Positioning ×2 Unearned certainty Motive imputed Personal attack This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Why does this minister hate democracy”.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 45
4 of 6 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.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I just want to poke holes in the justice minister’s argument over the length of debate on Bill C-16.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “My question is for the minister who wraps himself in this paper tiger, saying that we do not respect the process and that there has been plenty of debate.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “We know that on the Liberal side, the only person who ever gets up and talks is the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “but has said the very least.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · no score
Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.
Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.
Respect · 93
1 of 6 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.
Motive imputed Claiming to know a person’s bad motives. What the tags mean → “Why does this minister hate democracy” It attributes hatred of democracy to the minister as a personal state of mind.
Clarity · 71
1 of 6 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.
Unearned certainty Something stated as certain with nothing to back it. What the tags mean → “We know that” The formula asserts certainty in place of a source before the claim about who speaks on the Liberal side.
Claims · 7
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 “We only debated this for two days at second reading” Bill C-16 was debated for two days at second reading. search 2 “we let it go on division” Bill C-16 was allowed to proceed on division after second reading to go to the justice committee. search 3 “We asked for eight meetings” The Conservatives asked for eight committee meetings to study Bill C-16. search 4 “The Liberals shut it down to only four meetings” The Liberals limited study of Bill C-16 at committee to four meetings. search 5 “We have only had one day to debate the bill at report stage” Bill C-16 had been debated for one day at report stage before this motion. search 6 “they are already moving closure” The government moved a time allocation motion (closure) for Bill C-16 at report stage and third reading. search 7 “the member from Winnipeg North who has said the most words ever” The member for Winnipeg North has spoken more words in the House than any other member ever. search
