Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Matt Strauss

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

141 words · 4 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Jeremy Patzer (Conservative)

“Madam Speaker, it is important to hear from somebody like my colleague, who has the medical professional background that he does. He has very eloquently expressed a lot of the problems that currently exist. It is very reasonable for Canadians to expect that their data and their information would be available to them wherever they may be, and I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. It has been a problem in Saskatchewan. It has been a problem in Ontario, as he has highlighted very well. I passed a bill on the copyright side for interoperability, so I appreciate his talking about the need for data interoperability. I am just wondering, on that very specific point, if he has a little more to add to the remarks he made earlier.”

Statement grade

75 / 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.

Procedure 17%Claims 16%Reasoning 67%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 24 wordssomething the member was driving at that I think is really important is the lens I would want this sort of bill to take.Procedure Claims · 23 wordsIn medicine in general, we have struggled over the last several decades to be more patient-centred and less institutionally centred in our approach. Reasoning · 94 wordsI would love it if this health information technology bill put health information technology more in the hands of patients, if it adopted the patient-centred approach. Instead of a bill telling Epic and Cerner that they have to fulfill Canada Health Infoway’s requirements on interoperability, I would love to see a bill that asks Cerner and Epic to put the health information in the hands of the patient to whom the information pertains, ¹and then that patient could choose to hand it over to Epic or to Meditech if and when they see fit.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 · 77

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 “something the member was driving at that I think is really important is the lens I would want this sort of bill to take.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

5 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 “In medicine in general, we have struggled over the last several decades to be more patient-centred and less institutionally centred in our approach.”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 “I would love it if this health information technology bill put health information technology more in the hands of patients,”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 “if it adopted the patient-centred approach.”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 “Instead of a bill telling Epic and Cerner that they have to fulfill Canada Health Infoway’s requirements on interoperability, I would love to see a bill that asks Cerner and Epic to put the health information in the hands of the patient to whom the information pertains,”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 then that patient could choose to hand it over to Epic or to Meditech if and when they see fit.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.

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 · 100

0 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.

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“fulfill Canada Health Infoway’s requirements on interoperability”Bill S-5 would require health information technology vendors such as Epic and Cerner to fulfill Canada Health Infoway’s requirements on interoperability.search

Analysed on 2026-11-06