Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Rhonda Kirkland

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-10-08

125 words · 10 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Mark Gerretsen (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member’s intervention, and the member spoke about children needing food, but I will reflect on the fact that she voted against the national school food program. I know that in Kingston, the national school food program funds the Food Sharing Project, which gives food to children in school. In Oshawa, it is Durham’s Child Nutrition Project that does the same work. Why did she vote against that? Before she goes to the default Conservative argument that if we had not created the situation, they would not need it, she should be reminded of the fact that Canada was the last of the G7 countries to adopt a national school food program. Even the United States of America has a national school food program. I am wondering if she can explain why she voted against it when this project was before the House, given her great concern for children getting access to food.”

Statement grade

A–

Average 87 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 80%Procedure 10%Positioning 10%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 35 wordsthe member knows well that when that was voted on, I was not elected as a member of the House.¹ It is so interesting that he stands here and says that I voted against it. Procedure · 7 wordsOn this, I want to be clear.Procedure Claims · 17 wordsI voted against the last budget because it was inflationary and was going to make things worse.² Positioning · 13 wordsThey know it. We know it. Canadians need to understand that as well.Positioning Procedure · 5 wordsThe other thing is this.Procedure Claims · 48 wordsWhen I spoke with folks at Simcoe Hall about the school lunch program, they said that it sounded good in theory, but clearly it is not working because we have children who are starving. They could not even identify one school in my area that has that program.³Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 74

5 of 8 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “On this, I want to be clear.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “They know it.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We know it.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Canadians need to understand that as well.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “The other thing is this.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 74

3 of 8 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 point put to the member, and the motion under debate.

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 “When I spoke with folks at Simcoe Hall about the school lunch program, they said that it sounded good in theory,”About local views on the school lunch program’s effectiveness, not why she voted against it.
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 “but clearly it is not working because we have children who are starving.”About the program’s results for children, not the vote she was asked to explain.
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 “They could not even identify one school in my area that has that program.”About the program’s presence in her area, not the reason for her vote.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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 · 3

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“when that was voted on, I was not elected as a member of the House”Rhonda Kirkland was not yet an MP when the House voted on the national school food program.search
2“I voted against the last budget”Rhonda Kirkland voted against the most recent federal budget.search
3“They could not even identify one school in my area that has that program”Simcoe Hall staff could not identify any school in Kirkland’s Oshawa area that has the national school food program.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19