Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jagsharan Singh Mahal

Conservative on Concurrence in Committee Reports 2026-10-27

77 words · 3 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker. I have to come back to the issue of completion grants for the trades. Completion grants were started by Prime Minister Harper. It was a very successful policy and strongly supported. The Minister of Jobs and Families came to committee and said that completion grants were not working. It is on the record. The Minister of Jobs and Families said they were not working. The government cancelled completion grants, then it relaunched them under a new name. It is like the Liberals said, “We came up with this great idea. They are called completion grants, which had been cancelled for a few months.” The minister assured us at committee that we should not worry, as they were going to connect the funding to ensure that nobody lost out in the intervening period. These are the facts. The government has no new ideas. It is repeatedly celebrating things that have existed in this country for decades, and its approach is failing. It is more announcements, and the government is cancelling and then renaming old Conservative programs. There is work to do. When will the government get with the program and actually do the work that needs to be done?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Thanks 16%Positioning 29%The ask 22%Reasoning 34%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 12 wordsI wholeheartedly agree with the member’s analysis of the situation right now.Thanks Positioning · 22 wordsThe government tries to use our ideas, but then all of a sudden it cuts half of them or applies them half-heartedly.Positioning The ask · 17 wordsIf the government has to apply our programs, let us be honest about it and apply them, Reasoning · 26 wordsso Canadians can have good paying jobs and earn good cheques, and so youth can also be a productive part of society and have well-paying jobs.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 52

3 of 5 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 “I wholeheartedly agree with the member’s analysis of the situation right now.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “The government tries to use our ideas,”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 “but then all of a sudden it cuts half of them or applies them half-heartedly.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 77

2 of 5 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.

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 “so Canadians can have good paying jobs and earn good cheques,”The clause discusses the goal of good pay for Canadians but does not address the specific failures of grant implementation cited in the point put.
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 so youth can also be a productive part of society and have well-paying jobs.”This clause discusses youth employment and social productivity but does not specifically address the critique of the government’s policy management or grant cancellations.

Respect · 100

0 of 5 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 · 100

0 of 5 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 · 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 2026-10-29