Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Warren Steinley

Conservative on Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 2026-06-15

114 words · 7 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me. The Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits. Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies’ pockets? Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians’ needs?”

Statement grade

75 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Claims 64%Reasoning 12%Positioning 11%Promise 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 41 wordsthere are so many ways the Liberals have wasted money. I can talk about the $300 million in PrescribeIT.¹ I can talk about the tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants and about the growing size of bureaucracy.² Reasoning · 14 wordsIf they hire more consultants, they should not have to have a larger bureaucracy. Claims · 18 wordsWe can talk about the millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid, ³Positioning · 12 wordswhich is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis.Positioning Claims · 14 wordsThere are a lot of areas where there is money wasted by the government. Promise · 15 wordsI want to make sure that those are cut and that the provinces remain full.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 86

1 of 10 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 “which is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

8 of 10 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 “there are so many ways the Liberals have wasted money.”About Liberal waste of money generally, not the oil and gas subsidies asked about.
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 “I can talk about the $300 million in PrescribeIT.”About spending on PrescribeIT, not the subsidies in 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 “I can talk about the tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants and about the growing size of bureaucracy.”About consultants and bureaucracy, not the oil and gas subsidies asked about.
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 “If they hire more consultants, they should not have to have a larger bureaucracy.”About consultants and bureaucracy, not the subject of the 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 “We can talk about the millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid,”About international aid spending, not the subsidies asked about.
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 is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis.”About the basis of international aid spending, not the subsidies in 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 “There are a lot of areas where there is money wasted by the government.”A general claim of government waste, not addressing the oil and gas subsidies asked about.
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 “I want to make sure that those are cut and that the provinces remain full.”About wanting cuts and full provinces, not about the oil and gas subsidies raised.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 · 83

1 of 10 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “I want to make sure that those are cut”A commitment with no named measure, date or success condition for the cuts.

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“$300 million in PrescribeIT”The Government of Canada spent $300 million on PrescribeIT.search
2“tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants”The federal government has spent tens of billions of dollars on third-party consultants.search
3“millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid”The Canadian government spends millions to billions of dollars annually on international aid.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20