“Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about Bill C‑30 are the changes regarding the approval of pesticides and herbicides. Under this bill, for economic reasons or in emergency situations, cabinet will be allowed to decide whether to use hazardous products. These people are not scientists and do not know what impact the use of these chemicals could have on nature, the environment, the plants intended for human consumption and, most importantly, the workers who will be spreading them. I have serious concerns about this. That was not what agricultural groups were complaining about. Their issue was with the inefficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate. Rather than making this body more efficient, the government is going to let the minister decide when hazardous products can be applied. What does my colleague think about that? Can she offer me any reassurance? I am still not reassured.”
Statement grade
A–
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 89. The grade is held to 85, 30 above Clarity.
85 / 100, held down by Clarity
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Reasoning 65%Claims 35%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 16 wordsI have a science background, 1and I think that we need evidence before making a decision.Claims · 21 wordsI know that cabinet has consulted research from around the world.2Unearned certaintyA lot of research has been done in other countries.Reasoning · 23 wordsWe cannot replicate every study that has been done.I think that we are going to make the right decisions based on evidence.Vague promise
