Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Greg McLean

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-06-02

178 words · 7 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Gord Johns (NDP). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Centre, despite our differences. I also have respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Confederation, who on May 27, 2025, in the House said, “We will ensure the future sustainability of programs that have already saved families thousands of dollars a year. This includes child care and pharmacare.” I am going to talk about pharmacare, because right now in Alberta there is not a pharmacare plan, something we fought really hard for as New Democrats. Does my colleague think that people in Alberta’s not having diabetes medicine or birth control is the responsibility, or blame, of his premier, Danielle Smith, or is it the Prime Minister’s fault?”

Statement grade

35 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Thanks 4%Claims 39%Reasoning 41%Positioning 16%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 7 wordsI appreciate the question from my colleague.Thanks Claims · 70 wordsI know that Alberta, frankly, has a very robust social welfare system, the envy of many provinces across the country. Whether those funds come from the federal government or the provincial government, they are stacked and actually represent a level of sustenance across the economy that people in need actually require.Off point That includes money for housing, for health and for all the things we look at in a social system, Partly on pointReasoning · 24 wordswhere people need to have a basic life and make sure they are taken care of. That is part of governing in this country: Positioning · 28 wordsmaking sure we look after the people who do not have the ability to quite look after themselves and that we are there for them in that respect.Positioning Reasoning · 49 wordsLayering on a federal program on top of provincial programs is no way to approach federalism in Canada. That is something we want to make sure of: that we give the province the ability to solve this at its level when it has that jurisdiction to take care of.Off pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 73

2 of 12 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 appreciate the question from my colleague.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “making sure we look after the people who do not have the ability to quite look after themselves and that we are there for them in that respect.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 5

9 of 12 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

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 motion under debate.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I know that Alberta, frankly, has a very robust social welfare system, the envy of many provinces across the country.”About Alberta’s social welfare system, not the motion’s economic indicators or the call for a plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Whether those funds come from the federal government or the provincial government, they are stacked and actually represent a level of sustenance across the economy that people in need actually require.”About the stacking of federal and provincial welfare funds, not the motion’s subject.
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 includes money for housing, for health and for all the things we look at in a social system,”Lists social spending areas including housing, but as welfare programs, not the housing costs the motion raises.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “where people need to have a basic life and make sure they are taken care of.”A general point about meeting basic needs, not the motion’s economic claims or plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is part of governing in this country:”A general statement about governing, not the motion’s subject.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “making sure we look after the people who do not have the ability to quite look after themselves and that we are there for them in that respect.”About caring for those unable to care for themselves, not the motion’s economic performance.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Layering on a federal program on top of provincial programs is no way to approach federalism in Canada.”A view on federal programs layered over provincial ones, not the motion’s economic subject.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is something we want to make sure of:”A connective statement about provincial jurisdiction, not the motion.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “that we give the province the ability to solve this at its level when it has that jurisdiction to take care of.”About provinces solving matters in their jurisdiction, not the motion’s economy or plan.

Respect · 100

0 of 12 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 · 81

1 of 12 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 give the province the ability to solve this at its level”It commits to no specific action, measure, date or success condition.

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