“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would agree with the following statement. The presentation in this chamber of Bill C-39 is actually a proof point, in the same manner that Bill C-5 was a proof point. What do I mean? Well, Bill C-5 is a proof point that 10 or 11 years of Liberal government has basically stifled resource development in this country, so the government needed Bill C-5. We supported it, fast-tracked it through, and now, after 18 months and 500 projects, absolutely zero has been done. Now the government has added a word, calling it “building Canada strong”, and here we are with Bill C-39. Would the member agree that it is a proof point that neither 10 years of previous policy nor the issuance of Bill C-5 has developed this country at all?”
Statement grade
B–
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity is 84. The grade is held to 74, 30 above Signal.
74 / 100, held down by Signal
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Positioning 52%Claims 48%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 15 wordswithout a doubt, we should not be here.Unearned certaintyWe should be building on past successes.PositioningClaims · 52 wordsWe should have been building 18 LNG projects out of B.C. We should not be having this discussion about Canada being Canada strong in terms of breaking down the barriers.1I mean, after that big announcement of one Canada, one economy, we still cannot sell wine from one province to another province.2Positioning · 41 wordsIt has just been announcement after announcement.I agree that 10 years of damage to our economy trying to be undone by the people who actually did the damage is actually putting us far down the ladder in terms of economics.3Positioning
