“Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the House of the leadership shown by the former minister of indigenous services, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, on this issue. She held consultations to build a strong consensus among the parties. From what I understand from the answer that the minister just gave us, the only difference between Bill C-61 and Bill C-37 is that more money is going to be invested. That is not true. Unfortunately, that is a bogus excuse. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Francis Verreault-Paul, is of the opinion that Bill C-37 no longer explicitly recognizes access to drinking water as a human right, a right recognized by the United Nations, and that some aspects of the bill represent a step backward compared to Bill C-61. My question is simple. What has the minister backtracked on?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 94 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 73%Promise 27%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Claims · 95 wordsthis bill is the result of six years of work by the first nations themselves.The information was provided by the communities themselves.I really took the time to study all of the evidence presented and to talk to many people who are affected by the current advisories.Partly on pointOne of the things my colleague really needs to try to understand is that the gradual implementation of the right to access drinking water is set out in the legislation.1This gives the communities the opportunity to say where they want to start and present their situation.Promise · 35 wordsThe government will work with them to establish a water system, infrastructure and a plan that can be shared with the members of each first nation, each community, in a way that respects their circumstances.
