Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Mike Kelloway

Liberal on Canadian Space Launch Act 2026-04-28

86 words · 4 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I note that the member opposite is an MP for Nova Scotia and that he is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for the Liberal government. I am stating that information because the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-28, addresses the need for Canada to develop its satellite launch and aerospace capabilities, among other things. I think this is a laudable objective, but in his speech, the MP spoke almost exclusively about how important this is for Canada and for Nova Scotia. He completely ignored the fact that more than 40,000 people work in the aerospace sector in Quebec and that Quebec is truly a leader in this cutting-edge technology. I would like to know whether I should be concerned about my colleague’s speech, and I would like to know if there is a place for Quebec in all of this.”

Statement grade

Average 91 / 100

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

Thanks 7%Claims 93%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 6 wordsthe member makes some solid points.Thanks Claims · 80 wordsI used Nova Scotia as an example, but I could have easily used Quebec as an example, in terms of the innovation and the collective intelligence when it comes to space, aviation and things of that nature. I think this regulatory framework touches all provinces, all opportunities, the skills and abilities, and the political and collective will of the Quebec people. I think that good things will be happening in Quebec as well as a result of this regulatory framework.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 91

1 of 2 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “the member makes some solid points.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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 point put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Respect

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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 72

1 of 2 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 “good things will be happening in Quebec”A commitment of future benefits with no measure, date or success condition.

Claims · 0

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

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20