Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Dan Mazier

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

67 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Mark Gerretsen (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, it must be tough for the opposition when all its members can do is criticize the way we calculate our investment in defence. I heard this member, like I heard the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman earlier today, criticize how we are investing by counting the Canadian Coast Guard in the calculation. This member seems to take issue with it. However, I am sure he would agree with it me that when NATO-allied countries are comparing themselves to each other, it is important that we all use the same formula and all account for the same things. This member might be surprised to learn that the United States has been counting its coast guard in its calculation long before Canada ever did. Would he not agree that rather than the rhetoric we hear from him, it is probably more important that the formula among all NATO countries is the same and therefore counting the Coast Guard is a good thing?”

Statement grade

C–

58 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Positioning 60%Claims 40%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 24 wordsthere we go, another misleading statement and another misled Liberal member of Parliament.Positioning I cannot honestly believe he is actually trying to defend this.Off pointMotive imputed Claims · 27 wordsThe Prime Minister and the Liberal government are purposely misleading Canadians and the entire world when they say they are going to use research vessels for defence.¹ Positioning · 16 wordsThat is wrong on so many counts, and I cannot state it more.Partly on point It is deplorable.PositioningOff point An hon. member: Oh, oh!

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I cannot honestly believe he is actually trying to defend this”.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 53

4 of 11 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “there we go, another misleading statement and another misled Liberal member of Parliament.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That is wrong on so many counts,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and I cannot state it more.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is deplorable.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 28

6 of 11 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “there we go, another misleading statement and another misled Liberal member of Parliament.”It attacks the questioner instead of discussing the bill’s contents.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I cannot honestly believe he is actually trying to defend this.”It attacks the questioner instead of discussing the bill’s contents.
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 “The Prime Minister and the Liberal government are purposely misleading Canadians and the entire world when they say they are going to use research vessels for defence.”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 “That is wrong on so many counts,”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 “and I cannot state it more.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is deplorable.”It is a general expression of disapproval without connecting to the Bill’s policy.

Respect · 81

1 of 11 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.

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “I cannot honestly believe he is actually trying to defend this”The speaker attributes a lack of good faith to the person being addressed.

Clarity · 100

0 of 11 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.

Nothing lost points.

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“say they are going to use research vessels for defence”The Prime Minister and the Liberal government stated they are going to use research vessels for defence.search

Analysed on 2026-10-22