“We lowered the retirement age, while the Conservatives wanted to raise it. We are also helping 12 million Canadians pay for food and essentials.”

“Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, as my colleague said, we lowered the retirement age. Those folks over there wanted to raise it to 65. We are there for seniors. We are there for all Canadians. We are also supporting them through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help 12 million Canadians who need it right now.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

“Canada's economy is doing well compared to other rich countries. Conservatives say they support seniors, but they voted against our dental plan. That plan helps over 32,000 people, including seniors, in the member's own riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I see the member is all smiles. I must remind him that, according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada has the best fiscal position and the second-fastest growth in the G7. Now, it is always strange to see the Conservatives claim to be standing up for seniors when they have systematically voted against measures that directly help seniors. I will remind my colleague of one. There are 32,456 people in his riding, including many seniors, who benefit from the Canadian dental care plan, which he opposes. Maybe he should reconsider his values.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Respect 90 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Maybe he should reconsider his values”.

  See full analysis →

“Our government supports seniors. We lowered the retirement age to 65, which the member voted against, and we are working to lower grocery costs. I want to work with him to help seniors with their money problems.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are there for seniors, in fact. That is why every time we release a new economic announcement, we are thinking about how we can protect them. We were in favour of lowering the retirement age to 65, but my colleague voted against that. Not only that, but we are there for seniors in various ways, including by fighting food inflation, because it goes without saying that seniors are also affected by food inflation. My colleague is very nice. We have a very good relationship, and I will be pleased to work with him to address our seniors’ financial woes.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 32 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →