Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jacques Gourde

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-06

114 words · 8 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, the government is moving forward. Bill C-39 is all about speeding up a process and providing assurances that Canada wants to build. Let us look at what took place in Toronto last month, when the Prime Minister hosted world investors with literally historic amounts of money brought to the table, half a trillion dollars. Whether it is that particular special event or the amount of collaboration between Ottawa and the provinces in developing major projects, it is all part of a bigger picture to build a stronger and healthier Canada for all. Would the member not agree that a holistic approach is the best way of moving forward and doing what I just said?”

Statement grade

C+

67 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Aside 39%Claims 41%Positioning 19%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 33 wordsit is music to my ears to hear my colleague, who has been a member of this House for the past 10 years all the while advocating for lengthy environmental studies and processes.¹AsideOff point Claims · 25 wordsThe previous government, under Trudeau, undermined investor confidence. This government is now playing catch-up, trying to attract foreign investment so that investors come to Canada. Positioning · 9 wordsThe Liberals should have been doing that work sooner.Positioning Claims · 22 wordsThey should have continued what we were doing prior to 2015. Investors from all over the world wanted to invest in Canada. Positioning · 13 wordsThey shattered investor confidence and now we have to start all over again.PositioningPartly on point Aside · 12 wordsAt least, hearing that sort of talk is music to my ears.AsideOff point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 37

4 of 12 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “it is music to my ears to hear my colleague, who has been a member of this House for the past 10 years all the while advocating for lengthy environmental studies and processes.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “The Liberals should have been doing that work sooner.”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 “They shattered investor confidence and now we have to start all over again.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “At least, hearing that sort of talk is music to my ears.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 47

8 of 12 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “it is music to my ears to hear my colleague, who has been a member of this House for the past 10 years all the while advocating for lengthy environmental studies and processes.”A jab at the questioner’s years of advocating long processes instead of an answer to the 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 “The previous government, under Trudeau, undermined investor confidence.”About past damage to investor confidence, not whether a holistic approach is the best way forward.
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 “This government is now playing catch-up, trying to attract foreign investment so that investors come to Canada.”About the government attracting investment, but does not address the holistic-approach question put to the member.
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 Liberals should have been doing that work sooner.”About the Liberals’ supposed delay, not the question of the best way forward.
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 “They should have continued what we were doing prior to 2015.”About the pre-2015 record, not the approach the questioner proposed.
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 “Investors from all over the world wanted to invest in Canada.”About past investor interest, not the question asked.
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 “They shattered investor confidence and now we have to start all over again.”About lost investor confidence, not whether the holistic approach is best.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “At least, hearing that sort of talk is music to my ears.”Repeats satisfaction at the questioner’s remarks rather than answering the question.

Respect · 100

0 of 12 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 12 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“has been a member of this House for the past 10 years”The Bloc Québécois colleague the speaker addressed has been a member of the House of Commons for the past 10 years.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19