Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-09-24

53 words · 2 sentences · 2 clauses

Replying to Burton Bailey (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been known for the phrase, “We will build at speeds not seen in generations”. The last time the government promised speeds not seen in generations, it was with Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office, 18 months later, has issued zero permits and zero workers are on the ground. What good is this bill if the first one did not get anything built?”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Reasoning 43%Promise 57%

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

Madam Speaker, Reasoning · 23 wordsif the Liberals’ past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to.No reason given Promise · 30 wordsAs an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 69

1 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 “As an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.”States the opposition’s own commitments about projects and affordability without addressing what good the bill is.

Reasoning · 53

1 of 3 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “if the Liberals’ past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to.”The statement points to past Liberal behaviour as an indicator but never names any actual past record, so the scepticism stands alone as a prediction.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“if the Liberals’ past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe statement points to past Liberal behaviour as an indicator but never names any actual past record, so the scepticism stands alone as a prediction.

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 · 41

1 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we are going to fight to get projects built”A commitment with no measure, date or success condition attached to how projects would be built.

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