Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Matt Strauss

Conservative on Connected Care for Canadians Act 2026-11-05

150 words · 9 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member clearly indicated that how health information technology is handled is absolutely critical and that he supports the principle of the legislation. I am encouraged by that. In terms of the whole mismanagement area, it was the Harper government that brought in Phoenix. There is no escaping that. In other words, there are ways in which, no doubt, we can learn from past experiences in order to advance the principle of a good idea. I appreciate the member’s knowledge, I must say. I am quite impressed with his background and his understanding of the urgency of this. I believe that it would be best addressed at the committee stage. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on whether he thinks this legislation will pass, given that the Senate has already supported it in principle.”

Statement grade

C+

67 / 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.

Aside 19%Claims 40%Reasoning 41%

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

Madam Speaker, Aside · 11 wordsI think this is becoming a bit of a running gag.AsidePartly on point Claims · 20 wordsAfter literally every speech I give in this House, the member for Winnipeg North stands and says, “but Stephen Harper”.¹Unearned certainty Aside · 18 wordsI suspect that he checks under his bed for Stephen Harper before he goes to sleep at night.AsideOff point Claims · 20 wordsIn general, I criticized the federal government trying to do things that cannot be done. This is a vast country.² Reasoning · 61 wordsIf this problem were solvable, it would be solvable close to home at a low level. If a single province cannot get this done within its borders, I do not understand how any federal government, Stephen Harper’s or otherwise, would be able to achieve that. Is it still a good idea to do something that is well-intentioned but doomed to failure? Claims · 20 wordsPart of the answer to that is how much money the Liberals plan to spend on their well-intentioned, doomed project.Partly on point

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 · 74

2 of 12 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “I think this is becoming a bit of a running gag.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “I suspect that he checks under his bed for Stephen Harper before he goes to sleep at night.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 37

9 of 12 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 “I think this is becoming a bit of a running gag.”A quip about the exchange itself, not an answer to whether the bill will pass.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “After literally every speech I give in this House, the member for Winnipeg North stands and says, “but Stephen Harper”.”About the questioner’s habit of invoking Harper, not the bill’s passage.
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 suspect that he checks under his bed for Stephen Harper before he goes to sleep at night.”A joke about the questioner’s fixation on Harper, not the question asked.
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 “In general, I criticized the federal government trying to do things that cannot be done.”About his critique of federal action on this problem, not whether the bill will pass.
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 “This is a vast country.”A general observation about the country’s size, offered as context for his federal-role argument, not the passage question.
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 “If this problem were solvable, it would be solvable close to home at a low level.”About where the problem is best solved, not whether the legislation will pass.
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 “If a single province cannot get this done within its borders, I do not understand how any federal government, Stephen Harper’s or otherwise, would be able to achieve that.”An argument that the federal government cannot solve this, not an answer on the bill’s passage.
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 “Is it still a good idea to do something that is well-intentioned but doomed to failure?”A rhetorical question about pursuing a well-intentioned project, not the question of whether the bill will pass.
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 “Part of the answer to that is how much money the Liberals plan to spend on their well-intentioned, doomed project.”About Liberal spending on the project, not whether the legislation will pass.

Respect · 100

0 of 12 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 · 79

1 of 12 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 “After literally every speech I give in this House”Asserts an absolute pattern with no source offered.

Claims · 2

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“After literally every speech I give in this House, the member for Winnipeg North stands and says, “but Stephen Harper”.”After virtually every speech Matt Strauss gives in the House, the member for Winnipeg North (Kevin Lamoureux) responds by referring to Stephen Harper.search
2“This is a vast country”Canada is a geographically large country.search

Analysed on 2026-11-06