Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Pierre Poilievre

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-05-07

40 words · 4 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Leah Gazan (NDP). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker on the motion spoke of putting international law aside and sitting down together about a Canadian version of reconciliation. Does the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition know and agree that the legislation we adopt in this place is presumed to be consistent with our international obligations, yes or no?”

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 65%Positioning 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 26 wordswe pass laws in this country for our people in Canada. We do not pass laws based on what some multinational bureaucracy tells us to pass. Positioning · 14 wordsWe work for Canadians in this country. We are Canadians first and Canadians always.PositioningOff 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 · 63

2 of 6 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 “We work for Canadians in this country.”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 “We are Canadians first and Canadians always.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 0

4 of 6 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 “we pass laws in this country for our people in Canada.”About who Canadian laws serve, not the property rights or litigation issues in the motion.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We do not pass laws based on what some multinational bureaucracy tells us to pass.”About deferring to international bodies, a subject the motion does not touch.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We work for Canadians in this country.”A general statement of whom the member works for, not about 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 “We are Canadians first and Canadians always.”A general patriotic declaration unrelated to the motion on property rights and the Cowichan case.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 6 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 · 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