Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Ellis Ross

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-24

94 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Marcus Powlowski (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention, although I ended up feeling a little confused. He started off talking about Liberal policies stalling and stifling major projects. In this bill, my understanding is that both the impact assessment and the permitting would be done concurrently and over the course of a year. I would think that would address his problem with our stalling major projects. Then he went on, and it seemed that at the end he was criticizing the one year as not being enough. Exactly where does the member stand on the one-year timeline to get projects approved?”

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.

Aside 18%Claims 40%Positioning 12%Reasoning 30%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 13 wordsI thank the member for his confusion because I am confused as well.Mockery Claims · 38 wordsI know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office, and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge. Positioning · 11 wordsAs far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus.Positioning Reasoning · 28 wordsIf people do not understand the process, which should be a clear-cut process for investors, first nations and Canadians, then how are we going to build Canada strong?Partly on point Aside · 4 wordsI understand your confusion.Mockery

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 · 85

1 of 9 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 “As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

6 of 9 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 “I know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency,”Describes the existing assessment agency but offers no position on the one-year timeline 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 “but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office,”Raises confusion about the Major Projects Office’s role without addressing the timeline 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 “and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge.”Notes the bill puts a regulator in charge but does not say where the member stands on the one-year timeline.
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 “As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus.”Criticizes the process structure as muddled, not the timeline the question 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 people do not understand the process,”Speaks to the need for a clear process for investors and communities, not the member’s stance on the timeline.
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 should be a clear-cut process for investors, first nations and Canadians, then how are we going to build Canada strong?”Links a clear process to building Canada strong, but gives no answer on the one-year timeline.

Respect · 100

2 of 9 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.

Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.What the tags mean “I thank the member for his confusion”Sarcastically thanking the member for being confused ridicules his understanding rather than his argument’s substance.
Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.What the tags mean “I understand your confusion”Sarcastic jibe aimed at the member himself, mocking his grasp rather than anything he said or did.

Clarity · 100

0 of 9 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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20