“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Before I ask her a question, I want to point out to the House that this is a perfect example of the problems we have with the interpretation system. It is forcing a colleague from Quebec to give a speech in English to ensure that her anglophone colleagues understand it. I think that is a shame. Let us not forget that. That said, Bill C‑40 talks about investments. In fact, it talks about transitioning from an agency to a Crown corporation. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. To me, it does not seem like a significant investment to improve Canada’s defence situation. It looks like a minor change to me, a cosmetic change. I want to hear my colleague’s comments on that. Is this bill calling for clear investments? Will the government actually hire soldiers, train them better, or buy planes, ships and tanks? Is there any investment in defence, or is it just a change in the name of a structure? At the same time, could the same thing not have been done with an agency rather than a Crown corporation? It is all a bit discouraging.”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 100 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 57%Reasoning 43%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 51 wordsI think that this bill does make a concrete change.At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we saw just how long it takes to provide the necessary tools to the Canadian Armed Forces.The fact that it can take 16 to 26 years to acquire this equipment is truly incomprehensible.1Reasoning · 39 wordsOne of the reasons is that multiple different departments were involved.2Now that everything is concentrated within one department, I think things will move much faster when it comes to procuring aircraft, ships and all the equipment we need.
