← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 77. The grade is held to 73, 30 above Relevance. 73 / 100, held down by Relevance
Signal
65 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
43 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Clarity
100 / 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 18% Positioning 15% Claims 66%
Structure · 5 steps
Claims · 4
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Procedure · 18 words I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre. Procedure Positioning · 35 words It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. Positioning Partly on point Claims · 152 words This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to.1 2 Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.3 Off point Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity.4 Procedure · 24 words I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes. Procedure
At a glance
Lost points for Procedure ×3 Off point ×3 Positioning ×2 Partly on point ×2
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 65
5 of 10 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 am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre.” 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 → “It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away.” 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 → “It is interesting to hear them complain about costs.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. 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 → “I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment.” 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 → “I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 43
5 of 10 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 bill 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 → “It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away.” A complaint that the government rejects the bill, not a point about what the bill does or contains.
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 → “It is interesting to hear them complain about costs.” A remark about the government’s objections to costs, without addressing the bill’s provisions.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS.” About a green energy fund allegedly funding ISIS, which the bill does not touch.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to.” Further detail about the foreign funding matter, unrelated to the bill’s subject.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.” About funding for an overseas EV company, a subject the bill does not address.
Respect · 100
0 of 10 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 · 100
0 of 10 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.
Nothing lost points.
Claims · 4
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 “a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS” A company funded through the Liberal government’s green energy accelerator fund was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to support ISIS. search 2 “this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to” The Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars through its green energy accelerator fund to the company convicted in France and the U.S. of funding ISIS. search 3 “it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine” Under the same fund, the Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company named as a war sponsor supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. search 4 “It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity” Bill C-269 would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity. search
