Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Carlos Leitão

Liberal on Canadian Space Launch Act 2026-04-28

57 words · 4 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Kurt Holman (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, in a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high. Why are the criteria for approval and indemnity not written in law? Is it because the minister wants the power to reward well-connected firms behind closed doors, without a single second of parliamentary oversight?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Reasoning 79%Claims 21%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 30 wordsno, it is not that at all. What we are hoping to achieve with the legislation is to be practical, to be pragmatic and to be able to move quickly.Vague promise Claims · 12 wordsThere are sufficient Canadian companies interested in and capable of doing this. Reasoning · 15 wordsIt is very important that we do this with Canadian companies and for Canadian companies.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 3 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 73

2 of 3 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.

Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “There are sufficient Canadian companies interested in and capable of doing this.”About the interest of Canadian companies in the industry, not why the criteria are not in law.
Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.What the tags mean “It is very important that we do this with Canadian companies and for Canadian companies.”About favouring Canadian companies, not the question of statutory criteria or oversight.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 · 57

1 of 3 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 “hoping to achieve with the legislation is to be practical, to be pragmatic and to be able to move quickly”The speaker’s goal is stated with no actor, measure, date or success condition attached.

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