Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Salma Zahid

Liberal on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-06

53 words · 3 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Mr. Speaker, so many of these large projects actually benefit U.S. companies and continue to send Canadian products to the U.S. I am wondering if there is any screen or filter of which the member is aware within government that ensures that before projects of national interest are announced, there is an analysis of this in advance.”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Claims 8%Reasoning 72%Promise 21%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 4 wordsprojects will be analyzed, Hidden agencyReasoning · 38 wordsand it is important that we use Canadian materials to build, because that is what is going to help build a stronger Canada. We must build faster and build with Canadian products. That is of the utmost importance, Partly on pointPromise · 11 wordsand we will make sure that these projects involve Canadian products.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 6 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 · 61

4 of 6 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 “and it is important that we use Canadian materials to build,”About using Canadian materials in building, not about whether a screening analysis exists before projects are announced.
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 “because that is what is going to help build a stronger Canada.”About the general aim of building a stronger Canada, not the screening 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 “We must build faster and build with Canadian products.”A general call to build faster with Canadian products, not the existence of an advance analysis.
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 “That is of the utmost importance,”Emphasis on building with Canadian products, not the screening mechanism asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 · 69

2 of 6 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “projects will be analyzed”A passive that omits who will do the analysis, which is exactly the screen the questioner asked about.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we will make sure that these projects involve Canadian products”A commitment with no named mechanism, date or measure for how Canadian products will be ensured.

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 2026-10-19