Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Gabriel Ste-Marie

Bloc Québécois on Business of Supply 2026-05-26

115 words · 7 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Caroline Desrochers (Liberal). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him. I really enjoy working with him. The economic statement refers to the electrification strategy and the strategy to protect nature. We are maintaining our international investments. We are also investing in clean infrastructure. Does my colleague agree with those investments?”

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.

Thanks 14%The question 5%Claims 75%Reasoning 6%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 16 wordsit is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues.Thanks The question · 6 wordsDo I agree with those investments? Claims · 86 wordsThey are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, ¹and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies. The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government’s environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, ²and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. Reasoning · 7 wordsIn my opinion, the evidence is clear.Off pointUnearned certainty

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 · 82

1 of 12 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 “it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 0

10 of 12 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 “Do I agree with those investments?”It restates the question about electrification and nature investments, which is 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 “They are important,”It praises the investments asked about, not the gas tax measures 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 “but the government is also taking steps backwards.”It is a general claim about the government stepping backwards, not about the motion’s proposals.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit,”About public transit funding cuts, not federal taxes on gas or the Clean Fuel Standard.
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 we have other similar concerns.”A vague reference to other concerns, 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 “The government is taking several steps backwards,”It repeats the general claim about steps backwards without addressing the motion’s measures.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies.”About assistance to oil companies, not the gas tax relief or Clean Fuel Standard the motion proposes.
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 fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government’s environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal,”About a former minister’s remarks on environmental policies, not the motion’s tax measures.
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 analysts are saying that he is absolutely right.”About analysts’ views on that remark, not the motion’s proposals.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “In my opinion, the evidence is clear.”A general conclusion about the evidence discussed, not the motion’s subject.

Respect · 100

0 of 12 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 · 91

1 of 12 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 evidence is clear”Asserts clarity of evidence without citing what that evidence is.

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“$5 billion less for public transit”The federal government’s 2026 economic statement provides $5 billion less for public transit.search
2“the former environment minister is saying that the current government’s environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government”Canada’s former environment minister said the current government’s environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20