Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Carlos Leitão

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-04-30

69 words · 4 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Bloc Québécois). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague was once part of the Government of Quebec. He was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. He was even the finance minister, so he is very familiar with Quebec’s financial structure and the relationship with Canada in this respect. He was also part of a government that, like every government since the 1990s, fought to ensure that Quebec got its fair share of health transfers. The Government of Quebec advocated strenuously for that. On many occasions, by means of motions adopted unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly, he even criticized Ottawa for failing to pay its fair share. Here are some of the numbers in the economic update. I am not pulling these numbers out of thin air. Health transfers will rise from $54.7 billion in 2025‑26 to $67.5 billion in 2030‑31. Over that same period of time, interest payments on the public debt will climb from $54 billion to $80.9 billion. The rising cost of simply servicing the public debt is greater by far than growth in spending on something as important as health transfers. I would like my colleague to comment on that.”

Statement grade

30 / 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 41%Promise 51%Reasoning 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 21 wordsconcerning the Canada health transfer, a formula has been negotiated by the federal and provincial governments, ¹and the amounts are indexed.² Promise · 35 wordsWhat I can say is that negotiations and discussions will take place during upcoming federal-provincial meetings, and I am sure that this transfer formula will be updated during negotiations held in the years to come.Unearned certainty Claims · 7 wordsThe formula is not set in stone. Reasoning · 6 wordsIt can and should be adapted.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 7 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 · 0

6 of 7 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

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 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 “concerning the Canada health transfer, a formula has been negotiated by the federal and provincial governments,”About the health transfer formula, not the sovereign wealth fund the motion addresses.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and the amounts are indexed.”About indexing of health transfers, not the fund or its financing.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “What I can say is that negotiations and discussions will take place during upcoming federal-provincial meetings,”About upcoming federal-provincial meetings, not the motion’s subject.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and I am sure that this transfer formula will be updated during negotiations held in the years to come.”About future negotiation of the transfer formula, not the sovereign wealth 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 formula is not set in stone.”About the transfer formula’s flexibility, not the motion’s proposal.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It can and should be adapted.”About adapting the transfer formula, not the fund the motion calls to abandon.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 · 69

1 of 7 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 “I am sure that this transfer formula will be updated”The assurance ‘I am sure’ is asserted in place of any source for what future negotiations will bring.

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“a formula has been negotiated by the federal and provincial governments”The Canada health transfer amounts are determined by a formula negotiated between the federal and provincial governments.search
2“the amounts are indexed”Canada health transfer amounts are indexed.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20