Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Carlos Leitão

Liberal on Canadian Space Launch Act 2026-04-28

14 words · 1 sentences · 1 clauses

Replying to Dan Albas (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the minister earlier this morning about the gaps in the bill when it comes to national security, he said not to worry and that we would be working with the Canadian Space Agency. However, the Canadian Space Agency does not do national security or intelligence, nor does it have a mandate to do so. CSIS is not included in the bill, and neither is the RCMP. Does the member believe that there needs to be a solid reprisal or a change to the bill to address this?”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Reasoning 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 14 wordsI think those kinds of issues would be well discussed in the parliamentary committee.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 49

1 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.

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 “I think those kinds of issues would be well discussed in the parliamentary committee.”Suggests the issues belong in committee study but does not say whether the bill needs a national security change.

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 · 0

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 “would be well discussed in the parliamentary committee”A commitment to handle the raised issues with no actor committing, no date, and no measure of what discussion would achieve.

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