Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dan Muys

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

148 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Melissa Lantsman (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the story is the same, same and not different with this bill and all of the other money that has flowed through provinces where housing starts did not increase and the price has not gone down. In fact, it has gone up. Earlier today, we asked the Minister of Housing how many houses the $1.7 billion would build. We even asked the parliamentary secretary, who had a slightly better answer than the minister, but there is still no answer at all about how many houses the $1.7 billion of taxpayers’ money would build. I ask my hon. colleague if he knows how many houses the $1.7 billion the House is being asked to approve right now will build.”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Procedure 3%Claims 69%Reasoning 28%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 5 wordsthat is exactly the point.Procedure Claims · 102 wordsWe were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that.¹ In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period.² We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening.³ We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. Reasoning · 41 wordsWe should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, ⁴which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 95

1 of 3 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “that is exactly the point.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 80

2 of 3 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 “We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government,”It proposes the Conservatives’ alternative approach to housing costs rather than addressing the number of homes the $1.7 billion would build.
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 fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.”It sets out the party’s proposal on municipal fees and taxes rather than the homes the bill’s funding would produce.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 3 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 · 4

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“a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built”Bill C-26 would authorize payments of $1.7 billion without a stated number of homes to be built.search
2“This question was asked in question period”A question about how many homes the $1.7 billion would build was asked in question period on June 16, 2026.search
3“The question was asked in this debate”The question of how many homes the $1.7 billion would build was asked earlier in this evening’s debate on Bill C-26.search
4“cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government”Government fees, taxes and municipal charges make up about one-third of the cost of a home in Canada.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20