Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-05-28

108 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, one of the principal arguments that the Conservatives are using is that what the independent body of the CRTC is proposing is having such a profound impact that it is not worth protecting our industry. The industry I am referring to is our arts industry, which creates and has literally tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. They are trying to blame it all in regard to the United States. I think we have a responsibility to protect our industries as we go through the negotiations. We will strive to get the best deal for Canada, first and foremost. We understand that two and a half million Canadians rely on exports to the United States. There is a multitude of different policies that we are putting into place to protect those jobs and to grow our industries, but—”

Statement grade

Average 90 / 100

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

Claims 47%Procedure 12%Reasoning 32%Positioning 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 51 wordsvery boldly, I will reiterate for the record, the USTR warned Canada again and again not to institute this Netflix tax.¹ The USTR, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the ways and means committee of the U.S. Congress, specifically cited the implementation of the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant, ²Procedure · 13 wordsand I can attach that for the record in the House of Commons.Procedure Reasoning · 35 wordsWe in the House have to acknowledge that this is a big picture. We cannot get caught up in the noise and the rhetoric.Partly on point This is significant information and data that needs to be addressed, Positioning · 9 wordsand this is a careless act by the government.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 75

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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and I can attach that for the record in the House of Commons.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and this is a careless act by the government.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 84

2 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 “We in the House have to acknowledge that this is a big picture.”A general call to see the big picture, without addressing the point about the arts industry or trade.
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 “We cannot get caught up in the noise and the rhetoric.”A generic warning about noise and rhetoric that does not engage the point or the motion’s substance.

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 · 100

0 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.

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“the USTR warned Canada again and again not to institute this Netflix tax”The United States Trade Representative repeatedly warned Canada not to institute the streaming tax (the Netflix tax).search
2“Ambassador Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the ways and means committee of the U.S. Congress, specifically cited the implementation of the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant”U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, cited the implementation of Canada’s Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20