Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jamil Jivani

Conservative on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

131 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, whom I represent with pride and dignity. There were some things I found interesting in my colleague’s speech, particularly when it came to the privatization of ports and so on. Bill C‑39 seeks to do just that. The government even announced that it wants to privatize airports. That is certainly not in our national interest. I would like my colleague to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is taking advantage of a crisis that should be temporary to implement measures that will be permanent and that will have harmful effects, particularly for the public interest.”

Statement grade

B+

82 / 100, held down by Clarity

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

Thanks 7%Claims 69%Reasoning 24%

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

Madam Speaker, Thanks · 9 wordswhat a fantastic question that was from my colleague.Thanks Claims · 91 wordsHe precisely pointed out what is going on, which is that we are facing a temporary crisis and the government is using it to bring in permanent measures and changes to our country. The airport privatization issue is a perfect example.¹ We have had very little public discussion about this and very little conversation here in the House of Commons, yet we are seeing massive changes being done to our country under the guise of responding to the current crisis.Hidden agency We will deal with the consequences of these decisions for generations, Reasoning · 31 wordsand that is exactly why we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get, even when the Liberals point a finger at us and smear our good reputations.Vague promise

At a glance

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

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “what a fantastic question that was from my colleague.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 52

2 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “massive changes being done to our country”The passive names no actor for the changes, leaving who is doing them unstated in the clause itself.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get”A commitment by the speaker’s side to oppose, with no measure, date or success condition named.

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“The airport privatization issue is a perfect example”The government has an airport privatization agenda under consideration as part of the measures debated in Bill C-39.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19