Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois on Business of Supply 2026-06-08

172 words · 10 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Pat Kelly (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier in the debate on Alto, and I know how sensitive the people in his riding are about expropriation. Going beyond the expropriation issue, just some cocktail-napkin math here, if it costs $90 billion and, as the McGill study said, there are only going to be 12 million annual passengers, and they borrow the money at, let us say, 4%, that is about $300 a ticket. Does the member think that the Liberals have done their homework in any way on what the actual cost would be in order for that project to be financially viable?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 96 / 100

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

Claims 92%Positioning 8%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 135 wordsthere is no business plan. We ask questions and Alto responds by spending millions of dollars on advertising instead of giving us the facts.¹ For the first full year of operation, according to McGill University researchers, Alto is overestimating the number of passengers by 15 million per year.² According to the McGill University study, over the years and in today’s dollars, more than $50 billion will have to be spent on subsidies, just to keep this project going.³ The government is going to have to pay 15% of the project’s costs up front.⁴ The government is going to have to expropriate more land than they need so they can sell it back to developers to fund 15% of the project’s costs.⁵ That is if there are no cost overruns, and there will be cost overruns. Positioning · 13 wordsLet us see how they work. Let us see how they approach people.PositioningPartly on point Claims · 24 wordsAside from the expropriations, my constituents and all Quebeckers and Canadians are right to be worried about Alto when it comes to their taxes.

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 89

2 of 4 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 “Let us see how they work.”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 “Let us see how they approach people.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 94

2 of 4 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 “Let us see how they work.”A vague pledge to watch how they work, without addressing the cost question.
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 “Let us see how they approach people.”A vague pledge about how they approach people, without addressing the cost question.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 4 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 · 5

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“spending millions of dollars on advertising”Alto has spent millions of dollars on advertising.search
2“overestimating the number of passengers by 15 million per year”According to McGill University researchers, Alto is overestimating the number of passengers for its first full year of operation by 15 million per year.search
3“more than $50 billion will have to be spent on subsidies”According to the McGill University study, more than $50 billion in today’s dollars would have to be spent on subsidies over the years to keep Alto going.search
4“pay 15% of the project’s costs up front”The government would have to pay 15% of Alto’s project costs up front.search
5“expropriate more land than they need so they can sell it back to developers”The government would have to expropriate more land than Alto needs so it can sell it back to developers to fund 15% of the project’s costs.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20