Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jeff Kibble

Conservative on An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund 2026-06-16

130 words · 9 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Sébastien Lemire (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his thoroughness. He has the ability to keep things in perspective, which is nice to see in this Parliament, especially after the two very partisan speeches given by the parliamentary secretaries. I enjoyed hearing my colleague’s ideas on how to improve accountability. I would like him to expand on that. How does he propose that we cut more costs, especially in relation to housing? Housing falls under provincial jurisdiction. Would transferring money to the provinces with no strings attached not be the best way to cut down on paperwork and red tape, cut costs, increase housing construction and improve access to housing for those who need it most?”

Statement grade

C+

68 / 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 26%Procedure 7%Claims 30%Positioning 24%The ask 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 34 wordsI thank my colleague for his great question. I appreciate my colleague’s kind words and the opportunity to speak a little, very briefly in the time I am allowed, about some of the improvements.Thanks Procedure · 9 wordsI laid it out fairly clearly in my speech, ProcedureClaims · 5 wordsbut it is about accountability. Positioning · 26 wordsLook, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada. We are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians.Positioning Claims · 34 wordsNo, we are voting against lousy bills that are wasting money and are not building houses, and we have seen that with $13 billion for 11,000 houses.¹ That is what we are voting against. Positioning · 5 wordsWe are voting for Canadians.Positioning The ask · 17 wordsI encourage my colleague to review my notes and go over the four points for bringing accountability.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 38

6 of 14 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 thank my colleague for his great question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I appreciate my colleague’s kind words and the opportunity to speak a little, very briefly in the time I am allowed, about some of the improvements.”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 “I laid it out fairly clearly in my speech,”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 “Look, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada.”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 “We are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians.”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 “We are voting for Canadians.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

8 of 14 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 “but it is about accountability.”Restates his focus on accountability without answering whether unattached transfers are best.
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 “Look, we love when money is spent to help housing in Canada.”States support for housing spending but does not address the transfer-with-strings 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 are always accused that we are voting against that and voting against Canadians.”About accusations his party faces over votes, not the question on provincial transfers.
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 “No, we are voting against lousy bills that are wasting money and are not building houses,”Explains his party’s voting rationale on bills, not whether unattached transfers to provinces are best.
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 have seen that with $13 billion for 11,000 houses.”Cites a spending record figure on housing without addressing the transfer proposal.
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 “That is what we are voting against.”Repeats what the party votes against, not the question asked.
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 are voting for Canadians.”A general statement of support for Canadians, not an answer on provincial transfers.
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 encourage my colleague to review my notes and go over the four points for bringing accountability.”Directs the member to his earlier notes rather than answering the question on unconditional transfers.

Respect · 100

0 of 14 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

0 of 14 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 1

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“$13 billion for 11,000 houses”A housing programme that spent $13 billion has produced 11,000 houses built so far.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20