Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Elizabeth May

Green on Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 2026-06-01

152 words · 6 sentences · 13 clauses

Replying to Andrew Lawton (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I shudder to ask this question after the very kind praise from my colleague toward the Conservatives, but I cannot help but recall, in light of her criticism of the budget implementation act, of which there is a great deal to criticize, that she actually supported the Liberal budget based on promises from the Prime Minister on what the government would do. I do not actually criticize my colleague for this, but I wonder if she might have any cautionary words for others who are similarly being given these grand promises from the Prime Minister and the Liberals and what happens with those when it comes to the actual legislation they put forward.”

Statement grade

Average 92 / 100

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

Claims 77%Reasoning 17%Procedure 3%Positioning 3%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 63 wordsI did vote for it, ¹and I stand here as the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget, ²because not only was I given oral promises, but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget.³ That was reversed within 10 days of that vote, ⁴Hidden agencyReasoning · 26 wordsso yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget. Procedure · 4 wordsThat is quite something.Procedure Positioning · 5 wordsIt is a new record.Positioning Claims · 54 wordsSome governments forget what they said they were going to put in a budget, and two or three years later they have not done it, but I have never seen a promise in a budget reversed. Neither had the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which is why he is going to be leaving this place.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 91

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 “That is quite something.”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 “It is a new record.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 89

1 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 bill 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 “which is why he is going to be leaving this place.”About another member leaving the House, not the promises given.

Reasoning · 87

0 of 4 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

Nothing lost points.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“so yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget.”

Because“but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget.”

“That was reversed within 10 days of that vote,”

Reason given

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 · 91

1 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “That was reversed”The passive names no actor for the reversal, though the government’s action is the point of the charge.

Claims · 4

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 vote for it”Elizabeth May voted in favour of the 2025 Liberal budget.search
2“the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget”Elizabeth May was the only opposition member who voted for the Liberal budget.search
3“the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery”The 2025 Liberal budget document contained a commitment against investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery.search
4“That was reversed within 10 days of that vote”The budget commitment on investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was reversed within 10 days of the budget vote.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20