Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Scott Aitchison

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-09

142 words · 7 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Kelly McCauley (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”. CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 97 / 100

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

Thanks 9%Claims 64%Promise 27%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 13 wordsmy colleague always has incredibly insightful questions. That is a very good point.Thanks Claims · 91 wordsIn fact, what has happened with respect to development charges is that the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges, ¹but not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program.² A local municipality can say, “Yes, we are good; we like our development charges at $100,000 a lot”, and that means nothing happens. Those development charges stay high and no results happen. It is all based on whether the municipality agrees to reduce its development charges. Promise · 38 wordsConversely, the Conservative plan would be to leverage municipalities to reduce their fees, and to assist them, absolutely, with the costs of housing-enabling infrastructure, but it would be based on results, not on hopes of things getting better.

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 87

2 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 “my colleague always has incredibly insightful questions.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “That is a very good point.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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 bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 2

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“the federal government and the provincial government, in Ontario only, have come up with a program to reduce development charges”The federal government and the Government of Ontario have jointly created a program to reduce development charges in Ontario.search
2“not to reduce them unless the local municipality applies to the program”Under the federal-Ontario development charge reduction program, a municipality’s development charges are reduced only if the municipality applies to the program.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20