Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Elizabeth May

Green on Business of Supply 2026-04-30

46 words · 4 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, a number of things do not add up in the Liberals’ arguments. First, we are told that this fund is similar, and even comparable, to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, when we know full well that Norway did not go into debt to finance its own fund. Second, we are told that this fund will be independent, when we know full well that it will fund only projects that come from the Major Projects Office and that the Prime Minister will decide which projects are referred to the Major Projects Office. Obviously, this fund will be politically influenced. Why are the Liberals trying to tell us they bought a cat, when it is actually a horse? Why do they think everyone will believe it is a cat when it is really a horse?”

Statement grade

78 / 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.

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 46 wordsthe economic update document includes the following sentence: “Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”.¹ That is all. There is no explanation, no rationale. There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 48

5 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, and the motion 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 “the economic update document includes the following sentence:”It notes what the economic update says about the fund, on the subject but not answering the points about financing and independence.
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 ““Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”.”It quotes the fund’s name from the document, on the subject but not addressing 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 “That is all.”It remarks on the document’s brevity, on the subject but not answering what was 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 “There is no explanation, no rationale.”It comments on the absence of explanation in the document, on the subject but not on the financing or independence points raised.
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 “There is not a single reason why we should have confidence in the idea of a Canada Strong fund.”It questions confidence in the fund generally, on the subject but not answering the specific points put.

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 · 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“Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund”The economic update document contains the sentence ‘Introducing Canada’s own sovereign wealth fund—the new Canada Strong Fund’.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20