Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Brad Vis

124 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member who just spoke would ensure that LNG does not take off. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in his comments and him not being able to acknowledge the modules and the reason that steel is coming from China. Shame on him for not being more transparent on that issue. My question to the member is related specifically to the motion we have before us. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but when they have the chance, for example, to provide dental assistance to seniors who are on fixed incomes, they vote no. In fact, they are telling those seniors that they are going to get rid of the program. Does the member not see any inconsistency when the Conservatives talk about affordability, but they say they are not going to increase the disposable income of seniors on fixed incomes?”
Statement grade
B
75 / 100, held down by Relevance
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 56%Reasoning 36%The ask 7%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 65 wordson the very first point, 15 years ago, Canada did not have the capacity to build naval warships, 1but it built that capacity. I believe we have the most educated workforce in the world. We have all the talent right here and the technology to do what is required to build LNG phase two with Canadian steel. The government talks about diversifying, pivoting and innovating. Reasoning · 45 wordsThis is the chance to innovate. This is the chance to stand up for Canadian workers and, by extension, stand up for our country at a critical juncture. It is not going to be easy, but exporting that work to China is not the answer. The ask · 9 wordsThe government needs to do better on that front, Claims · 5 wordsand I believe Canada can.Partly on point

Analysed on