Analysis · Debate reply · beta

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-05-26

129 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Jean-Denis Garon (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for being here. I send my regards to the minister and thank him for being here. We always appreciate him. Minister, officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities gave us a briefing on Bill C‑26, which you yourself tabled. We were reassured. We understood that the bill would not impose any conditions on the transfer of $1.7 billion to improve housing supply in Quebec. However, in the legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to establish and allocate the amounts as he sees fit. Can the minister confirm that he will not impose any conditions that would infringe on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction and that the money will be distributed in such a way as to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share?”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Thanks 15%Claims 85%

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

Madam Chair, Thanks · 19 wordsI would like to begin by thanking my colleague for being here this evening to ask his important question.Thanks Claims · 110 wordsI have already been in touch with the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments to inform them of the amount that will be allocated.¹ In the spirit of co-operative federalism, at the request of our provincial colleagues, we allowed the provinces to use these amounts for housing within existing provincial programs.² What I can say to my colleague this evening to reassure him is that the amount that is allocated to Quebec was based on a formula that Quebec fully understands.³ At the same time, we worked together to ensure that the funding could be quickly put to use in Quebec. Our colleagues in Quebec are very pleased.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 80

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 “I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for being here this evening to ask his important question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 96

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 motion 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 “Our colleagues in Quebec are very pleased.”Comments on Quebec’s satisfaction without addressing the conditions or the share asked.

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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 3

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 have already been in touch with the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments to inform them of the amount that will be allocated”The Finance Minister informed the Government of Quebec and other provincial governments of the amount to be allocated under the $1.7-billion housing transfer in Bill C-26 before the May 26, 2026 debate.search
2“at the request of our provincial colleagues, we allowed the provinces to use these amounts for housing within existing provincial programs”The federal government allowed provinces, at their request, to use the Bill C-26 housing funds within existing provincial programs.search
3“the amount that is allocated to Quebec was based on a formula”Quebec’s share of the $1.7-billion housing transfer was determined by a formula known to Quebec.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20