Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Mélanie Joly

Liberal on Grocery Industry 2026-04-28

82 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Leah Gazan (NDP)

“Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals line corporate pockets with sovereignty incentives paid for by the taxpayer, the NDP is fighting to ban creepy surveillance pricing at the grocery checkout. The Liberals shut this down. They have a second chance. Today’s spring economic statement is another chance to decide who they stand with: people getting ripped off at the grocery checkouts or companies that are exploiting the population. Will they act and ban surveillance pricing once and for all, or will they keep protecting corporate profits?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 70 / 100

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

Positioning 7%Reasoning 10%Claims 34%Promise 49%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 6 wordsof course, we believe in competition, PositioningReasoning · 8 wordsbecause we believe that competition brings down prices. Claims · 28 wordsThat is why we have said clearly that we would be hawkish on competition. That being said, we are very concerned with the allegations linked to algorithmic competition. Promise · 40 wordsWe want to make sure that, ultimately, consumers are well protected.Vague promise This is work that we will be doing as well with the provinces and territories, Vague promiseand of course we will be there for consumers and Canadians across the country.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

1 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 “of course, we believe in competition,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

7 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 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 “of course, we believe in competition,”A general statement of belief in competition, not an answer on banning surveillance pricing.
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 “because we believe that competition brings down prices.”About competition lowering prices generally, not what was asked about surveillance pricing.
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 why we have said clearly that we would be hawkish on competition.”A general pledge on competition policy, without addressing a ban on surveillance pricing.
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 being said, we are very concerned with the allegations linked to algorithmic competition.”Expresses concern about algorithmic competition but commits to no action on the ban asked for.
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 “We want to make sure that, ultimately, consumers are well protected.”A general aim to protect consumers, not an answer on the proposed ban.
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 work that we will be doing as well with the provinces and territories,”About future work with provinces and territories, not the ban the question asked for.
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 of course we will be there for consumers and Canadians across the country.”A general assurance of being there for consumers, not an answer on banning surveillance pricing.

Respect · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 46

3 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We want to make sure that, ultimately, consumers are well protected”A commitment to an outcome with no named measure, date or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “This is work that we will be doing as well with the provinces and territories”A pledge of unspecified future work with no measure or timeline.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we will be there for consumers and Canadians”A promise of presence with no action, actor detail or test of success.

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 2026-10-20