Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gérard Deltell

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-24

110 words · 6 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back to the chamber. The member and the Conservative Party need to take a broader look at what is happening here. The Prime Minister just came back from a highly successful investment summit: half a trillion dollars, which is completely unheard of in Canadian history. This bill is part of building a stronger and healthier economy. Whether it is what took place in Toronto earlier this month, in attracting billions of dollars of investment, or ensuring that we can build projects, would the member not agree that we are on the right track to providing good-quality jobs and a stronger economy for the future of Canada?”

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.

Greeting 11%The question 23%Claims 37%Promise 7%Reasoning 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 12 wordsI am very happy to see my colleague here in the House.Greeting The question · 25 wordsDoes the member remember where he was two years ago when he voted against my private member’s bill, Bill C-375, for one project, one evaluation?¹ Claims · 41 wordsHe voted against it, and that is on the record. We lost two years on that issue, ²and we lost more than 10 years because of the Liberal administration. Government after government was opposed to any development of our natural resources. Promise · 8 wordsNow we want to fast-track everything, for sure, Vague promiseReasoning · 24 wordsbut the reason we have to do that right now is that during the last 10 years, the government failed to achieve great things.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.

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.

Greetings and pleasantries.What the tags mean “I am very happy to see my colleague here in the House.”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

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 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 “Does the member remember where he was two years ago when he voted against my private member’s bill, Bill C-375, for one project, one evaluation?”About a past vote on the member’s own private member’s bill, not whether the government is now on the right track.
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 “He voted against it,”Recalls the past vote on the private member’s bill, not the agreement asked for.
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 that is on the record.”Points to the record of the vote, not the question of the current direction.
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 lost two years on that issue,”About time lost on the past bill, not the agreement sought about the present track.
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 lost more than 10 years because of the Liberal administration.”About the past governments’ record on natural resources, not the agreement 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 “Government after government was opposed to any development of our natural resources.”A general claim about past governments’ opposition to development, not the current direction under the bill.
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 “Now we want to fast-track everything, for sure,”Touches fast-tracking under the bill but offers no position on whether the government is on the right track.
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 the reason we have to do that right now is that during the last 10 years, the government failed to achieve great things.”Blames the past ten years of government rather than addressing the agreement asked for.

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 · 89

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 “we want to fast-track everything”The commitment names no specific measure, project, or condition for what fast-tracking means.

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“he voted against my private member’s bill, Bill C-375”Kevin Lamoureux voted against Gérard Deltell’s private member’s bill, Bill C-375, on ‘one project, one evaluation’, when it was before the House.search
2“We lost two years on that issue”Bill C-375, on ‘one project, one evaluation’, was before the House about two years before this 2026 debate, and it did not become law.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20