Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Pierre Poilievre

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-04-30

172 words · 12 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Canadians had the opportunity to decide. It was a decision that was made based on how the economy was doing. People were genuinely concerned about Trump, tariffs and trade. They were concerned about the economy and affordability. They looked at the leader of the Conservative Party and contrasted him with the leader of the Liberal Party, who had been appointed as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of England, and who has had an impeccable career dealing with economic measures. The Canada Strong fund, a national sovereign wealth fund, is something that Canada needs. It is something Canadians will support, because they understand the necessity of supporting Canada’s economy, and at the same time, supporting Canadians. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not support a government that invests in Canada and invests in Canadians?”

Statement grade

D–

40 / 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 5%Claims 88%The question 7%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 4 wordsthere he goes again.Positioning Claims · 17 wordsThe member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade.Off point Positioning · 5 wordsHe speaks, and the reality— PositioningPartly on pointUnearned certaintyAn hon. member: As you have done for 22 years. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Claims · 134 wordsMr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right. On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong. The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes.¹ He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground.² He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline, ³which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it. He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID.⁴Off point He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation.⁵ He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade.⁶Partly on point The question · 12 wordsHow is it that he has been so wrong for so long?Off 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 · 92

3 of 18 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 he goes again.”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 “He speaks,”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 the reality—”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 10

14 of 18 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 motion 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 he goes again.”A jab at the questioner rather than any answer on the fund.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade.”An attack on the questioner’s decade of speeches, not on the fund or the 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 “He speaks,”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 the reality—”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 “Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right.”Praise of the speaker’s own 22-year record, not an answer on the fund.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong.”Blame of the Prime Minister’s record in general, not tied to the fund or the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes.”About the carbon tax, a subject the fund debate does not address.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground.”About oil production policy, not the fund or the question asked.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline,”About the Prime Minister’s past testimony on a pipeline, not the fund.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it.”About the blocked pipeline’s value, a different subject from the fund.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID.”About a past deflation forecast, not the fund or the 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 “He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation.”About money printing and inflation, touching the motion’s inflation premise without addressing the fund or the 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 “He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade.”About affordability claims, touching the motion’s cost-of-living premise without addressing the fund or the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “How is it that he has been so wrong for so long?”A rhetorical attack on the Prime Minister’s record, offering no answer on the fund.

Respect · 100

0 of 18 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 · 97

1 of 18 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 “the reality—”The speaker opens with the certainty formula ‘the reality’ in place of any source or backing.

Claims · 6

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“we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes”The Prime Minister said that Canada needed bigger and broader carbon taxes.search
2“keep 50% of our oil in the ground”The Prime Minister said that Canada should keep 50% of its oil in the ground.search
3“testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline”The Prime Minister testified before a parliamentary committee against the Northern Gateway pipeline.search
4“we would have deflation after COVID”The Prime Minister said that Canada would have deflation after COVID.search
5“money printing would not cause inflation”The Prime Minister said that money printing would not cause inflation.search
6“affordability is the best it has been in the decade”In the weeks before the debate, the Prime Minister said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20