Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dave Epp

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-06

66 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague makes it sound like nothing good ever happens. It is high time he recognized all the efforts that have been made and all the results achieved over the past year and a half to strengthen the Canadian economy. He wants concrete examples. The Toronto summit attracted a total of $500 billion in investment in Canada that will go towards projects in our communities, that will support our workers and that will boost our economy. These are concrete examples. The 24 projects that the office is currently considering, all the projects already under construction, the port expansions and the various projects where work has already begun are all concrete examples linked to our government’s leadership since we were elected last year. I would like to know whether my colleague will finally recognize the work we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy and support us on Bill C-39.”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 66 wordsI am going to remind the member opposite that Bill C-5, the omnibus Building Canada Act, was passed in this chamber with our support.¹ We are the ones that said, “Let us get going.” We are the ones that said, “We really need to get Canada moving.” The evidence has not been there. Now here we are, one year later, with the building Canada strong act.²

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Claims · 2

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“Bill C-5, the omnibus Building Canada Act, was passed in this chamber with our support”Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, was passed in the House of Commons with the support of the Conservative Party.search
2“one year later”The Building Canada Strong Act (Bill C-39) was being debated approximately one year after the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5) was passed.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19