Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Mark Gerretsen

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-05-26

84 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite and I found his speech and his arguments fascinating. Among other things, he criticized the fact that the Conservative proposal would essentially favour the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate, while increasing the deficit. In this context, I was wondering about something, because it seems to me that the same argument could be made about suspending the excise tax on gas. Why did his government put that in place? Does he agree with his government’s decision? Ultimately, suspending the excise tax on gas is the same principle as suspending the GST. It is calculated the same way, and it benefits the same people.”

Statement grade

76 / 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 85%Reasoning 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 58 wordsI did not say what he said. I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy.¹ What I was doing, and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians.² Reasoning · 13 wordsMy argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them. Claims · 13 wordsWhat the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.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 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 46

6 of 6 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 “I did not say what he said.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “What I was doing,”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “and I said it many times, was talking about the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “My argument is, no, it is not more of a benefit for them.”Reasserts his argument about who benefits, but does not address whether he agrees with the excise tax suspension.
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 “What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy.”Restates his claim about the Conservative proposal without answering the question about the excise tax decision.

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 · 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“I did not say that this would benefit only the ultrawealthy”In this debate, Mark Gerretsen did not say that the Conservative gas tax motion would benefit only the ultrawealthy.search
2“the exchange between the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley and the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that this would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians”In an exchange in the House, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that removing gas taxes would be more of a benefit for low-income Canadians.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20