Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Warren Steinley

Conservative on Build Canada Homes Act 2026-06-09

109 words · 7 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo posed a question to one of the member’s colleagues from Alberta. I would like to echo the same sentiment from that question. That is, we have agreements today for housing projects in collaboration in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We continue to work collaboratively with different jurisdictions. Can the member be very clear? If he does not support the legislation and he does not support the federal government being involved directly in housing, will he say that very clearly today? Will the member be bold enough to say that he will not support those projects that are being supported by the provinces, municipalities and federal government?”

Statement grade

A–

Average 88 / 100

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

Positioning 14%Reasoning 66%Promise 20%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 8 wordsI do not have to be very bold.Positioning Reasoning · 72 wordsI think the provincial governments do need some federal funding. I do not think the federal government needs to have another bureaucracy in order to listen to municipalities and provinces and get them the funding they need to build homes. It does not have to be in the business of homebuilding. It can actually help the provinces when it comes to funding. The government does not have to pick winners and losers, Positioning · 7 wordswhich I know Liberals like to do.PositioningPartly on point Promise · 22 wordsAfter Build Canada Homes comes to fruition, I am very sure that Brookfield will be building a lot of homes in Canada.Unearned certainty

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 · 82

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 “I do not have to be very bold.”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 “which I know Liberals like to do.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 96

1 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 bill 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 “which I know Liberals like to do.”A generalization about Liberals’ habits that only loosely ties to the bill’s approach.

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 · 75

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “I am very sure”The certainty about Brookfield’s future building is asserted without any source or evidence.

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