Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois on Building Canada Strong Act 2026-10-07

141 words · 8 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Mario Simard (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been telling us all evening that we might need to reduce the impact of regulatory constraints to promote trade corridors and infrastructure projects. However, the only infrastructure project they have mentioned so far is a pipeline that would cost at least $44 billion. I am sure my colleague can tell us everything we could do with $44 billion to help people who are struggling with an affordability crisis and perhaps even seniors who are having trouble making ends meet. Increasing the old age security pension might be a good idea.”

Statement grade

Average 92 / 100

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

Claims 89%Procedure 11%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 64 wordsin any case, that $44 billion would not be used to enrich U.S. interests or bolster U.S. energy security. Instead it would be used for projects that are truly in the national interest here. With $44 billion, we could easily increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 so that they get the same 10% increase as seniors aged 75 and older.¹ Procedure · 8 wordsSomeone was just talking to me about construction.Procedure Claims · 62 wordsI think that with $44 billion, without violating any other laws, we could easily invest more in organizations working on social housing and homelessness, in projects that are much more promising and much more helpful to the people here. That would also help people. Everyone is talking about inflation—all the more reason to help the people here get through this difficult time.Unearned certainty Procedure · 7 wordsThere are countless examples we could give.Procedure

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 · 85

2 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Someone was just talking to me about construction.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There are countless examples we could give.”Procedure or throat-clearing: 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 · 81

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “Everyone is talking about inflation”Asserts a widespread consensus as a premise without citing any source, the classic ‘everyone knows’ formula.

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 same 10% increase as seniors aged 75 and older”Seniors aged 75 and older receive a 10% increase in the old age security pension, which seniors aged 65 to 74 do not receive.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19