Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Gregor Robertson

Liberal on Indigenous Affairs 2026-05-25

71 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Brad Vis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to defend Canada’s system of private property rights and indefeasible title while sowing confusion and fear among homeowners about whether their land is secure. With the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement raising serious and valid concerns, British Columbians are wondering whether their private property rights will be defended at all, especially after the government constrained its arguments on extinguishment. Will the Liberal government fix its litigation and negotiation policies and commit to protecting Canadians’ property rights by supporting our Conservative motion today?”

Statement grade

B–

74 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Positioning 52%Claims 27%Promise 21%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 32 wordsit is shameful to continue to hear members of the opposition fearmongering about private property rights. We, on this side of the House, stand for private property rights. We stand for reconciliation.Positioning Claims · 19 wordsWe have appealed the case alongside the B.C. government, the government of the City of Richmond and first nations.¹ Promise · 15 wordsWe will continue to be there for private property owners and to work for reconciliation.Vague promise Positioning · 5 wordsThe fearmongering has to stop.PositioningOff point

At a glance

Lost points for
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
AnsweredOf this answer, 93% addressed the question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 44

4 of 6 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “it is shameful to continue to hear members of the opposition fearmongering about private property rights.”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, on this side of the House, stand for private property rights.”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 stand for reconciliation.”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 “The fearmongering has to stop.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 91

1 of 6 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 “The fearmongering has to stop.”A demand aimed at the opposition’s conduct, not an answer to what was asked.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 · 74

1 of 6 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 will continue to be there for private property owners and to work for reconciliation”A forward commitment with no actor, date, measure, or way to check it was delivered.

Claims · 1

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“We have appealed the case alongside the B.C. government, the government of the City of Richmond and first nations”In the case raised in the May 25, 2026 question period (the Cowichan decision matter), the federal government has appealed alongside the B.C. government, the City of Richmond and first nations.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20