Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Stephanie Kusie

Conservative on Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 2026-10-20

113 words · 3 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to James Bezan (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Midnapore has a lot of history here in working on Treasury Board, knowing how those guidelines are applied and why they are in place to protect the taxpayers of Canada. We have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure we are protecting those precious dollars that come from Canadian taxpayers and we have a responsibility to procure stuff for the Canadian Armed Forces so they can do the tough work of defending Canada and standing alongside our allies. The member did mention the problem that the Liberals have, which is that nobody trusts them because of scandal. Can she talk about some of the scandals the Liberals have had and how giving them unfettered access to $1 billion at a crack through a corporation that is completely directed by one minister opens the door to more corruption?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 74 / 100

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

Procedure 15%Claims 62%Promise 23%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 17 wordsfrankly, in the nine years I have been here, I do not think I have enough time, ProcedureClaims · 70 wordsbut the WE Charity scandal stands out in my mind significantly. There is the green slush fund that I mentioned, McKinsey and my favourite from the last Parliament was ArriveCAN, which I believe really woke Canadians up to not only the ineffectiveness of the government but the ill will in the attempt to cover up the poor expenditures of the government, in addition to giving money to friends and insiders. Promise · 26 wordsIt is an epidemic with the government and, unfortunately, for the Liberals, we will continue as the official opposition to hold them to account on it.Partly on pointUnearned certainty

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

1 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “frankly, in the nine years I have been here, I do not think I have enough time,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 46

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 “but the WE Charity scandal stands out in my mind significantly.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “There is the green slush fund that I mentioned, McKinsey and my favourite from the last Parliament was ArriveCAN,”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “which I believe really woke Canadians up to not only the ineffectiveness of the government but the ill will in the attempt to cover up the poor expenditures of the government, in addition to giving money to friends and insiders.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “It is an epidemic with the government and, unfortunately, for the Liberals, we will continue as the official opposition to hold them to account on it.”It speaks generally about holding the government to account but does not address the specific risks introduced by Bill C-40.

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 · 68

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “It is an epidemic with the government”The statement presents a sweeping judgment about the government’s state without citing a source.

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 2026-10-22