Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dan Albas

171 words · 8 sentences · 13 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.
“Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on one of the member’s comments on the whole idea of technology, because I really do agree with it. We have to ensure that technology works for people and not the reverse, in terms of having access. I will get the opportunity to expand upon that shortly, but I wanted to amplify just how important it is, in recognizing Bill S-5, that the primary focus is on patients in using technology. The member seems to imply that he supports the legislation in principle and wants to see it go to committee. Does he believe it is something that could be passed before Christmas?”
Statement grade
A+
Average 97 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 67%Procedure 8%Reasoning 26%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 42 wordsI would encourage the member to speak to the hon. Minister of Transport, who in addition to being a part-time minister of that portfolio is also the government House leader.1 He would probably have a better read on where things are going. Procedure · 13 wordsAll joking aside, I did not get to address this in my speech, ProcedureClaims · 72 wordsbut if we look at Europe, if we look at the United States, that is where most of these companies come from, 2and really, that is where the big money is spent. I do not know whether Canada would see significant compliance from those companies. I certainly hope those companies would look to do this. I just hope, though, it would not slow the adoption of new technologies as they come out, Reasoning · 44 wordsbecause, again, differing standards in different regions create a de facto trade barrier whether the government wants to admit it or not. I am hopeful that this bill would be helpful, but let us just say it is not unconditionally positive in all respects.

Analysed on