Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Peter Fragiskatos

Liberal on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2026-04-24

108 words · 8 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Burton Bailey (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Immigration had the gall to say that it is perfectly fine for Canadians to fund health care for scammers, rejected refugees claimants, because it is just “0.2% of the total health spending”. That is unbelievable. Over the past decade, more than 130,000 failed asylum claimants received better health care than Canadian taxpayers footing the $275‑million bill. Why is this acceptable to the Liberal government?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 73 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Claims 91%Procedure 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 43 wordsthe member is referring to the interim federal health program, a program that has been in existence since the 1950s, a program that has been supported by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.¹ Yes, this program does provide health care for people seeking asylum. Procedure · 6 wordsWhat have we seen since 2015?Procedure Claims · 35 wordsWe have seen a mass displacement crisis across the world. Canada has seen a mass increase as a result of people seeking asylum in this country. The program’s costs obviously have grown dramatically since then. Procedure · 4 wordsWhat have we done?ProcedureOff point Claims · 20 wordsWe have worked to bring down costs, putting in place a copayment system that is going into effect in May.²Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 87

2 of 8 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “What have we seen since 2015?”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “What have we done?”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 58

5 of 8 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the question asked.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “What have we seen since 2015?”Sets up a rhetorical detour into history rather than answering why the spending is acceptable.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We have seen a mass displacement crisis across the world.”Points to a global displacement crisis, a different topic from the question about program acceptability.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Canada has seen a mass increase as a result of people seeking asylum in this country.”Restates asylum claim increases in Canada, background rather than an answer to what was asked.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The program’s costs obviously have grown dramatically since then.”Notes cost growth, which underscores the questioner’s premise instead of addressing why the spending is acceptable.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “What have we done?”A rhetorical prompt with no content responsive to the question.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 74

1 of 8 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We have worked to bring down costs”States an effort to reduce costs with no measure, figure, or success condition, unlike the specific copayment detail in the same clause.

Claims · 2

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“the interim federal health program, a program that has been in existence since the 1950s”Canada’s interim federal health program has existed since the 1950s.search
2“putting in place a copayment system that is going into effect in May”The interim federal health program will introduce a copayment system taking effect in May 2026.search

Analysed on 2026-09-15