Analysis · Debate question · beta

Michael Cooper

130 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Following a speech by Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)
“Mr. Speaker, what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done. I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons. When Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him, and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did. It is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here, and then they line it all up, and oh my God we have a conspiracy. We call that a tin-hat theory. The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England, and he was an economist extraordinaire. He is very well respected around the world. Through his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy. What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption. That is what some of them tried to imply, but it is good public policy. The Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt. They can do that all they want, but at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda. If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements, or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel. I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers: How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer? I do not do that. I do not question their integrity. I do not question the ethics of that, because we have an Ethics Commissioner. I have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years, because its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination. I do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders, and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa. Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, but I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas. We will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do. It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.”
Statement grade
A+
Average 96 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 12%Claims 68%Reasoning 6%The question 14%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 wordslet me spell it out for the parliamentary secretary.Procedure Claims · 18 wordsThe Prime Minister has significant financial interests in Brookfield.1 He elected not to divest himself of those interests.5 Reasoning · 8 wordsConsequently, he does well when Brookfield does well, Claims · 16 wordsand Brookfield has done very well under his government, to the tune of billions of dollars.6 The question · 9 wordsWhich of those facts does the parliamentary secretary dispute? Procedure · 7 wordsIn addition to the so-called blind trust, ProcedureClaims · 54 wordswhich is not a blind trust, the Prime Minister set up an ethics screen, 2which he has repeatedly defied, including by meeting with Brookfield on multiple occasions in direct contravention of the screen the Ethics Commissioner set up.3 Also, he refuses to disclose times when conflicts were identified but he made a decision anyway.4 The question · 9 wordsWhy is the Prime Minister hiding those potential conflicts?

Analysed on