Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Kurt Holman

Conservative on Canadian Space Launch Act 2026-04-28

969 words · 60 sentences · 75 clauses

Statement grade

A–

Average 87 / 100

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

Procedure 3%Reasoning 27%Anecdote 4%Claims 47%Positioning 9%Promise 2%The question 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 15 wordsI will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.¹Procedure Reasoning · 7 wordsCanada should be a leader in space. Anecdote · 36 wordsI will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid. Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet.Anecdote Claims · 115 wordsThat sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space. In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite.² Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy. Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit. Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm. More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth.³ It is a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership, Partly on pointReasoning · 10 wordswhile also reminding us why strengthening our own capabilities matters. Positioning · 34 wordsLet me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada’s space capabilities. We support sovereignty. We support protecting Canada’s national security. We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy.Positioning Reasoning · 7 wordsBill C-28 speaks to a real opportunity. Claims · 10 wordsCanada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability.⁴ Reasoning · 34 wordsThat is a gap and a chance to lead. If done properly, this could strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and position Canada as a serious player in the next generation of space activity. Promise · 19 wordsOne day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future. Claims · 8 wordsWe have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce. Reasoning · 55 wordsThat may be further down the road, but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country.Partly on point However, ambition alone is not strong enough, because the question before us is not whether Canada should participate in space, but whether this bill would set us up to do it in the right way. Procedure · 6 wordsThat is where the concerns arise, ProcedureClaims · 28 wordsbecause as it stands, Bill C-28 would put too much power in the hands of the minister without leaving key rules and safeguards to be worked out later. Reasoning · 27 wordsIn plain language, it asks Canadians to accept the framework first and trust the rules, which will come later. That is not how we build durable policy. Positioning · 13 wordsIt is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque.Positioning Claims · 75 wordsThis bill would not even clearly define what a launch is. Instead, it would push those basic rules off to be decided later. At the same time, it would give the minister broad control over who gets approved, who gets denied and what conditions apply. It would allow the minister to change the financial rules and protect companies from liability. In some cases, it would limit the ways decisions could be appealed or reviewed independently. Positioning · 24 wordsWhat we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable.Positioning Reasoning · 7 wordsThat would be concerning on its own, Procedure · 9 wordsbut Canadians are already asking a more immediate question: ProcedureThe question · 46 wordsHow is it that, what is, today, little more than a gravel lot and a concrete pad on Crown land, which was leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement before Parliament has even been asked to approve the framework governing it?⁵ Reasoning · 23 wordsAt its core, this is a question about whether Parliament sets the rules or whether those rules are written later behind closed doors. The question · 30 wordsWho set that price? What valuation was used? Was there a competitive process? What exactly are taxpayers receiving in return? Who carries the risk if this project does not deliver? Claims · 21 wordsCanadians are not funding a finished asset. They are funding a project still under development in a market that remains uncertain. Reasoning · 24 wordsThat makes getting this right even more important. This is where the broader concern comes into focus, because this is not an isolated situation. Claims · 94 wordsWe have seen this pattern before.Partly on point With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million, ⁶which is roughly 750 times over budget. A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency, and Canadians were left with the bill. More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny.⁷ After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions, ⁸and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited. These are different files and different departments, Positioning · 12 wordsbut it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem, PositioningClaims · 99 wordswhich is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes. At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for. These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to. From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque.Off point This matters because Bill C-28 is not being introduced in a vacuum. It is being introduced in a context where trust in how large public projects are managed has been eroded. Reasoning · 43 wordsWhen a bill proposes to give broad power to ministers, to leave key rules for later and to move forward without clear safeguards, Canadians are right to be cautious. This is also a national security issue. Space is no longer just about exploration. Claims · 9 wordsIt is about communication, surveillance, navigation, defence and sovereignty. Reasoning · 29 wordsAny general launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions—

At a glance

Lost points for
Echo ×6“We have seen this movie before.” Said 6 times by 6 members.Every time it was said

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

12 of 40 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 “I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Let me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada’s space capabilities.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We support sovereignty.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We support protecting Canada’s national security.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “That is where the concerns arise,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “What we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “but Canadians are already asking a more immediate question:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 67

28 of 40 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 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 will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid.”A personal reflection on childhood fascination, not about the bill.
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 “Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet.”Childhood memories of Star Trek, not about the bill.
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 “That sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space.”General sense of wonder driving space achievement, not about the bill’s provisions.
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 “In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite.”Historical satellite achievement, background not tied to the bill’s launch framework.
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 “Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy.”General statement about Canadian space legacy, not addressing the bill.
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 “Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit.”Astronaut achievements, background not tied to the bill’s provisions.
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 “Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm.”Historic Canadarm innovation, not about the bill.
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 “More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth.”Artemis II participation, background not about the bill’s framework.
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 a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership,”A general point about partnership in space, not addressing the bill.
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 “One day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future.”A wish about one local airport’s future role, not about the bill’s provisions.
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 “We have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce.”General infrastructure and workforce claims, not addressing the bill.
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 “That may be further down the road,”A timing aside about the local airport idea, not about the bill.
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 “but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country.”General national ambition, not addressing the bill’s terms.
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 “because this is not an isolated situation.”Transitions to other procurement files rather than the bill itself.
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 “We have seen this pattern before.”Introduces a pattern claim about other files, not the bill’s terms.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million,”About the ArriveCAN app’s costs, a different file from the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “which is roughly 750 times over budget.”A figure about ArriveCAN, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency,”About a consulting firm’s role in ArriveCAN, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and Canadians were left with the bill.”About the ArriveCAN outcome, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny.”About the PrescribeIT e-prescribing program, a different subject from the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions,”PrescribeIT usage figures, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited.”Questions about PrescribeIT spending, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “These are different files and different departments,”Concedes these are different files and departments, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem,”Blame of the governing party over other files, not the bill’s terms.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “which is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes.”A general claim about other programs’ problems, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for.”A question about past program spending, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to.”A general claim about past examples, not the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque.”A list of past scandals on other subjects, not the bill.

Respect · 100

0 of 40 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 · 100

0 of 40 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.

Nothing lost points.

Echo · 1 repeated line

Words members of Parliament keep repeating, found by the same rule for every member. No score depends on it.

“We have seen this movie before.”Said 6 times by 6 members.Every time it was said

Claims · 8

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“I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain”Kurt Holman said in the House on 2026-04-28 that he would split his time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.search
2“In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite”Canada’s Alouette I satellite, launched in 1962 under prime minister John Diefenbaker, made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite.search
3“Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth”Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen took part in the Artemis II mission, which circled the moon and returned to Earth.search
4“Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability”Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability.search
5“leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement”A gravel lot and concrete pad on Crown land leased for $13,500 a year is part of a $200-million federal agreement.search
6“originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million”The ArriveCAN app was originally estimated at about $80,000 and ended up costing nearly $60 million.search
7“a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT”The PrescribeIT e-prescribing program received $300 million.search
8“After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions”PrescribeIT is used for less than 5% of prescriptions after nearly a decade.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20