Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois on Business of Supply 2026-05-05

113 words · 8 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, this time almost a year ago, this government and this Prime Minister were elected purely on a promise to resolve the tariff crisis. The Prime Minister told us that it would be resolved in June. Then he said it would be in July. In the end, he said that it might happen in September. A year later, not only has the tariff crisis not been resolved, but it has gotten worse with Donald Trump’s executive order and the April 6 tariffs. We understand that this government set the bar far too high when it came to negotiating. We now see that the government is incapable of keeping its promises. In the meantime, while we wait for an agreement with the Americans, should the government’s priority not be to take quick, effective and easy-to-implement measures that would help our businesses, our SMEs and Quebec’s economic fabric, as well as our workers?”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Thanks 6%Reasoning 22%Claims 36%The ask 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 7 wordswhat an intelligent question. That was fantastic.Thanks Reasoning · 12 wordsYes, that is absolutely true, Unearned certaintybut it needs to be done quickly. Claims · 41 wordsPeople in the forestry sector and other stakeholders are proposing solutions to the government. The major problem with this federation is that, right now, our entire fiscal capacity to support certain economic sectors is going to the oil and gas sector. The ask · 40 wordsI would just like a little bit of that to go to the forestry sector. I would like to see the government have the courage to support the forestry sector in the same way that it supports the energy sector. Reasoning · 13 wordsOn that day, we might see a little more fairness in this federation.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 92

2 of 4 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “what an intelligent question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “That was fantastic.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 92

1 of 4 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 “On that day, we might see a little more fairness in this federation.”It draws a general conclusion about fairness in the federation rather than the measures to help affected businesses and workers.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 · 94

1 of 4 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 “that is absolutely true”Certainty is asserted outright rather than backed by any source or evidence.

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