Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Pat Kelly

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-24

97 words · 7 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Mario Simard (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them. Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable. Does my colleague agree?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Reasoning 45%Positioning 24%Procedure 4%Claims 27%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 44 wordsI agree with much of what the member said. I do not think it is a good thing that the public money has to prop up any private project that would otherwise, in a proper regulatory environment that had clear criteria, make it investable. Positioning · 23 wordsI do not agree with the government’s approach. I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all.PositioningPartly on point Procedure · 4 wordsI could go on.Procedure Claims · 26 wordsI could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank. The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.¹Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 67

3 of 7 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 “I do not agree with the government’s approach.”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 “I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. 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 could go on.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 69

4 of 7 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 do not agree with the government’s approach.”Disagrees with the government’s approach generally, not with the point put about public funding and profitability.
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 do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all.”A general criticism of the government’s infrastructure record, not the member’s 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 “I could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank.”About the Infrastructure Bank’s record, not the question of public funding for unprofitable projects.
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 “The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.”About the government’s record chasing capital from energy, not the member’s asked point.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 7 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“during its 11 years in office”The Liberal government had been in office for 11 years as of the September 2026 debate.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20