Analysis · Debate reply · beta

David McKenzie

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-05

102 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Gord Johns (NDP). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, of course, there are things that my colleague and I may not agree on, but there are certainly things that we do. He talked about how the bill does not go far enough in terms of infrastructure. I think about the Prime Minister’s words about nation building, about building Canada strong. Right now, there are 65,000 Canadians who are homeless. They cite that this costs us about $3 billion a year and that it would save us $2 billion if they were to be housed. Right now, in Canada, 3.3% of our housing is non-market housing, compared to France and Britain, which are at about 16% to 17%, Denmark, 21%, the Netherlands, 34%. We do not have to look far to see what 3.3% looks like. Does my colleague agree that nation building, in a country as wealthy as Canada, should mean making sure that we do not have any homeless people in the country?”

Statement grade

30 / 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.

Reasoning 13%Claims 87%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 13 wordscertainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused. Claims · 89 wordsHowever, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada.Unearned certainty We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program.¹ That is 5,000 per year for five years.² This is a far cry from the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver.³Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 0

6 of 7 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

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 bill under debate.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “certainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused.”About homelessness and housing generally, a subject the bill does not touch.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “However, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada.”About federal housing delivery, not any measure in the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success.”About past Liberal housing efforts, which the bill’s project and supply chain measures do not address.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program.”About a housing program’s projected output, unrelated to the bill.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is 5,000 per year for five years.”Continues the housing program figures, a subject the bill does not touch.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “This is a far cry from the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver.”About the Prime Minister’s housing promise, not the bill’s measures.

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 · 71

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “what is clear in Canada is that”A certainty formula asserts a verdict without citing any source or evidence for it.

Claims · 3

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“The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program”The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government’s housing program.search
2“5,000 per year for five years”The PBO-projected 5,000 homes under the Liberal government’s housing program amount to 5,000 homes per year for five years.search
3“the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver”The Prime Minister has stated he would deliver 500,000 homes.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19