Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Laila Goodridge

Conservative on Build Canada Homes Act 2026-06-09

141 words · 7 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Andréanne Larouche (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. We heard that Quebec, through the Société d’habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty. Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities’ housing needs?”

Statement grade

B+

81 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Thanks 32%Procedure 4%Claims 33%Positioning 7%Reasoning 25%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 45 wordsI would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, ¹as well as on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.²Thanks Procedure · 5 wordsThe facts are crystal clear.ProcedureUnearned certainty Claims · 46 wordsWe heard from so many witnesses during the committee’s study of Bill C‑20. The witnesses said that there was a lot of uncertainty and that they were not getting answers about the point of all this or why it could not be done by existing agencies.³ Positioning · 10 wordsOttawa decided to create another structure, to add more bureaucracy.Positioning Reasoning · 35 wordsIt is not going to work. The fact is that we need to work more closely with the provinces, the territories and indigenous governments across the country because what Ottawa is doing is not working.

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 · 51

4 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 would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “as well as on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.”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 “The facts are crystal clear.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Ottawa decided to create another structure, to add more bureaucracy.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. 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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

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 facts are crystal clear”Asserts clarity of the facts without any source or backing offered in the statement.

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“serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities”Laila Goodridge serves on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.search
2“the Standing Committee on the Status of Women”Laila Goodridge serves on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.search
3“The witnesses said that there was a lot of uncertainty and that they were not getting answers about the point of all this”Witnesses appearing before the HUMA committee during its study of Bill C-20 said there was a lot of uncertainty and that they were not getting answers.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20