“Mr. Speaker, three things caught my eyes. They have been saying “must meet the moment” for 18 months. That hardly meets the definition of “moment”. When speaking of the bill, they said, “where Canadian projects actually get built”. To me, that sounds like they are clearly admitting that the first bill has completely failed. Now the government has added the word “strong”. They talked about strengthening our corridors. Again, that is from 18 months ago, including during their campaign. My question for the member opposite is this: Why in her own speech is she admitting to and highlighting their past failures, bringing those forward now under a new bill that has added the word “strong”? Does the member opposite expect that Canadians will believe them for this new bill?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 98 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 78%Positioning 7%Reasoning 15%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 50 wordsthis bill is the product of two rounds of public consultations with employers and unions.1As well, it follows nearly half a year’s worth of conversation and consultation with the tripartite council that we established in order to do the hard work and the heavy lifting to build this bill.2Positioning · 9 wordsI take issue with the members’ framing of this.PositioningClaims · 49 wordsThe government is actually hard at work pushing projects to approval, including the port of Montreal, the Matawinie mine and BHP’s potash project.3There is the OPG Pickering refurbishment that the Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this week.4These are all examples of projects that are moving forward, Reasoning · 19 wordsbut we have to do more, and this bill would get us to one project, one decision, one year.5
