Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Scott Aitchison

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-06-09

253 words · 12 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Caroline Desrochers (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed working with my colleague on Bill C‑20 at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He asked good questions. We really felt that he truly wanted to understand. After listening to him today, however, I have to wonder whether we were on the same committee or heard from the same witnesses. I find the premise of the member’s speech a bit disingenuous. We heard the committee witnesses, including promoters and developers, talk about how BCH would help, because increasing the number of affordable homes would ease the pressure on the market. We heard, including from the head of CMHC, about how BCH and CMHC are collaborating and how their work is complementary. Most important, the CMHC CEO said that while CMHC does have the legislative mandate to do some of the work that BCH will be doing, it is not set up for it. It would take it quite some time to ramp up to get to that point. I am just wondering if my colleague can really stand here today and say that none of these things were heard at committee.”

Statement grade

A–

Average 87 / 100

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

Thanks 8%Positioning 8%Claims 80%Procedure 4%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 20 wordsI want to say that I am a big fan of that member. We have done some great work together.Thanks Positioning · 21 wordsHowever, I think she has been afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear.Motive imputed Claims · 162 wordsThere is no question that builders and developers said they would use Build Canada Homes and work with it, that they have to work with the cards they are dealt by this federal government and they are going to work with them. They also said they would not have created this agency if it were up to them. They did say those words.¹ The fact is that all the member heard was that they love Build Canada Homes, they want to work with it and they want to do these things.Unearned certainty I also heard the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do.² The interesting thing about this is that, in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy, the CMHC was not set up to deliver that either, ³but it scaled up and did it. Procedure · 10 wordsThis is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan.Procedure Claims · 40 wordsThey gave the housing project to CMHC in 2017, which scaled up, but now all of a sudden it is incapable of scaling up to deliver this stuff. I do not know why we have a fourth federal housing bureaucracy.

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear”.
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

3 of 5 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 want to say that I am a big fan of that member.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “We have done some great work together.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “This is what is so perplexing about this Liberal plan.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 5 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 · 85

1 of 5 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.

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “afflicted with a very common Liberal problem where she heard what she wanted to hear”It attributes a personal bad-faith state of mind to the member rather than criticizing her arguments or record.

Clarity · 81

1 of 5 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “The fact is”The formula asserts the speaker’s reading of what the member heard in place of a source, and can be checked against the words.

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“They did say those words.”Developers and builders who appeared before the committee studying Bill C-20 said they would not have created Build Canada Homes if it were up to them.search
2“the president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation say that it was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes is now going to do”The president and CEO of the CMHC said at committee that CMHC was not set up to do the work that Build Canada Homes will do.search
3“in 2017, when the then federal Liberal government created the national housing strategy”The federal government created the national housing strategy in 2017.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20