Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Chi Nguyen

Liberal on Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26 2026-06-16

99 words · 4 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Tony Baldinelli (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 gives the Liberal Minister of Finance a blank cheque to spend $1.7 billion with no guarantees of results, targets or accountability to build homes. In fact, the word “housing” is in this bill only twice. My hon. colleague mentioned the rebate program, the program that was signed with the Province of Ontario, yet there is no specific program put in place through regulation on how that rebate will work. That is my understanding. I have had developers call me as late as last week. They cannot find out from the Ontario government how the rebate works. When they are told by the province to go to the CRA, the CRA is telling them it does not know how this program works. Perhaps the member can tell us how this rebate program will work.”

Statement grade

76 / 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 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 99 wordsI think this is a really important opportunity to show that kind of collaboration between the provincial government and the federal government, and to get the communications and clarity around the policy decisions that we need. We have set targets for our housing pieces.² I know that last year in Toronto we actually took back some of the funding because the city was not meeting some of the targets around multiplexes, ¹and in Vaughan as well. There are mechanisms, and we are making sure that the housing we are investing in gives us the returns we are looking for.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 · 100

0 of 8 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 46

7 of 8 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 “I think this is a really important opportunity to show that kind of collaboration between the provincial government and the federal government,”About federal-provincial collaboration generally, not how the rebate program works.
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 “and to get the communications and clarity around the policy decisions that we need.”Promises clarity on policy decisions without explaining the rebate program’s mechanics.
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 have set targets for our housing pieces.”About housing targets generally, not the operation of the rebate program 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 know that last year in Toronto we actually took back some of the funding because the city was not meeting some of the targets around multiplexes,”About Toronto’s funding and multiplex targets, not the rebate program’s workings.
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 “and in Vaughan as well.”About Vaughan’s funding and targets, not the rebate program 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 “There are mechanisms,”Mentions mechanisms exist but does not describe how the rebate program works.
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 “and we are making sure that the housing we are investing in gives us the returns we are looking for.”About ensuring returns on housing investments generally, not the rebate program’s operation.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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 “we are making sure that the housing we are investing in gives us the returns we are looking for”The commitment asserts oversight without naming any actor, measure, date or condition by which the returns would be judged.

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“I know that last year in Toronto we actually took back some of the funding because the city was not meeting some of the targets around multiplexes, ”In last year, funding was taken back in Toronto and Vaughan because those cities did not meet targets regarding multiplexes.search
2“We have set targets for our housing pieces.”The government has set targets for its housing programs.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20