Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Dominic LeBlanc

Liberal on International Trade 2026-05-28

88 words · 4 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Steeve Lavoie (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to hold a round table with many businesses in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou to discuss current trade issues and the upcoming CUSMA review. These businesses emphasized the importance of maintaining strong trade relations with the United States, while ensuring greater stability and predictability. Can the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade give us an update on the the ongoing discussions with our American partners and explain how our government is defending the interests of Canadian businesses and workers as part of the CUSMA review?”

Statement grade

C–

57 / 100, held down by Clarity

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

Thanks 18%Promise 58%Claims 24%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 16 wordsI want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his important work on this critical issue.Thanks Promise · 24 wordsAs everyone knows, the government is committed to continuing to negotiate with our American and Mexican partners as we head into the CUSMA review.Vague promiseUnearned certainty Claims · 21 wordsThat is why we are meeting with industry leaders and provincial and territorial representatives, as my colleague did in his riding. Promise · 27 wordsWe want to be ready for the upcoming review and ensure that we reach an agreement that is in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian workers.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 77

1 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his important work on this critical issue.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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 question asked.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 27

3 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “As everyone knows”Asserts shared knowledge in place of a source.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “committed to continuing to negotiate”Commitment to continued talks names no date, measure or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We want to be ready for the upcoming review”A readiness goal with no measure or date named.

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