Analysis · Debate reply · beta

François-Philippe Champagne

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-05-26

81 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Jasraj Hallan (Conservative)

“Mr. Chair, over the last 10 years, we have seen the Liberal government create many other bureaucracies that have not met any targets and have run large deficits. Why would the minister create another debt fund that is filled with taxpayer money?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 98 / 100

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

Reasoning 95%Procedure 5%

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

Mr. Chair, Reasoning · 77 wordsI would like to see my colleague have a bit more ambition for this country. This is about creating an instrument to provide collective wealth for Canadians. If it is good for the Nordic countries, as my colleague said, why would it not be good for Canada? I am asking the question to my colleague. Why would it not be good for Canada to have its own sovereign wealth fund? I think it is a good thing, Procedure · 4 wordsand it has been—Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 94

1 of 1 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and it has been—”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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