Analysis · Debate question · beta

Gord Johns

NDP on Business of Supply 2026-06-02

159 words · 8 sentences · 14 clauses

Following a speech by Mark Gerretsen (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, this is literally what the response was that I got from AI about the motion. Word for word, it said, “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I hear my friend from Saskatchewan across the way criticizing AI. I would remind him to tread lightly in this area, given the fact that I am pretty certain at least 70% to 80% of the questions asked during question period by the Conservatives are generated by AI, before he goes down that path of trying to be critical of it. I can understand why he does not like listening to what was generated as a response, but it is the reality of the situation. The real irony is not that AI spit out the obvious and what everybody already knows. What it really comes down to is that this is exactly what Canadians are feeling right now in watching the Leader of the Opposition’s response to what has happened. Let us just take ourselves back to Friday morning when Statistics Canada released information that we were in a technical recession by a declining growth of, listen to this, negative 0.03%. We are talking about a really small percentage. The Leader of the Opposition jumped on this news like it was the biggest gift he has ever received. He was so gleeful about it. He gathered whoever he could from his caucus who remained here on a Friday; they usually disappear halfway through question period on a Thursday. He dragged them out in front of this building, lined them up behind himself at 9:30 a.m. and gave a press conference with a gigantic smile on his face. He was so excited by this news. Imagine being a member of this House, one of the 343 members, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, and taking such joy in knowing that Canadians are suffering? That is exactly what we saw from him. That is not even where it ended, because it got even worse than that. Rightly so, a reporter from The Hill Times asked the Leader of the Opposition, on the topic of the economy, “Might you be going a little too far with this by suggesting that this is a massive, colossal economic situation?” The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, started laughing at the reporter and said, “Of course you are making excuses for the Prime Minister. What outlet are you from?” The reporter said The Hill Times, and the Conservative leader said, “Oh, yeah, The Hill Times.” What I find so utterly amazing is that Conservatives, much less the Leader of the Opposition, are unable to recognize that their strategy may have been really effective in 2024, but with everything going on in the world right now, with the way that the U.S. is positioning itself against us right now and is treating us like an economic enemy at times, and with the sense of incredible pride that Canadians have in wanting to stick together and fight this together, the Conservatives still think that it is a winning strategy to talk down Canadians, to talk down the Prime Minister and to talk down the position we are in. I can wonder all day long about why the Conservatives think this is an effective strategy, why they are doing this and why they have not realized that their 2024 tactics are just falling on deaf ears right now. People do not even have to listen to me. They do not even have to consider the fact that I am bringing this to their attention. They can just look at the fact that it is reflected in the polling. It is reflected in the decision in the last election. Canadians do not want the Conservatives. They do not want that rhetoric. They do not want that style of approach. They do not want a Leader of the Opposition who is going to laugh at reporters, challenge what outlet they are with and then dismiss them. Canadians do not want that. I really wish that my colleagues across the way, who keep heckling me right now, would take a moment to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of truth to what I am saying. Maybe the Canadian people would like to see humility and would like to see a Leader of the Opposition who actually takes the time to reflect on the world that people live in and does not jump at an opportunity to celebrate it, so that he can say “I told him so” to the Prime Minister on what amounts to a statistical error. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, it is negative 0.03% of growth. I am sorry. It is catastrophic. Look at them. They are doing it right now. They absolutely refuse. They want to make this the biggest, boldest and absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen. That is the narrative they are going with. I am actually not surprised, because they are just parroting what their leader did on Friday. He went outside this building, and he took the opportunity to celebrate the position that Canada was in. Conservatives can keep doing this. They can do it all day long, but I am telling them right now that this is not selling to the Canadian public. The Canadian public is not buying this. By the way, the Conservatives did this before. What situation did they set up for themselves? Their approach, always, is not asking what they are going to do to improve the lives of Canadians. Their approach is to make the other guy look bad, attack the other guy and beat him or her into submission so that they look like the champions. Guess what? They tried that in 2024. To a certain degree, they were kind of effective at it, but it did not materialize into their forming government, did it? It did not. They just ended up coming right back. It certainly did not result in Conservatives forming government. The key thing they are missing is that, rather than just attack, attack, attack, they have to provide solutions. They have to provide alternatives. I have said this so many times in the House. I am actually trying to give them political advice right now. People back in my war room are probably asking why I will not shut up, because I am telling them what to do, but it is true. I am just trying to help them because I feel like they really, genuinely need it. The reality is that Conservatives are going to keep doing this over and over and over. It is not going to produce anything for them because the reality of the situation is that Canadians are looking for parliamentarians, especially in the world that we live in right now, to work together, to collaborate together, to come up with ideas together and certainly not to celebrate potential downfalls, which is what the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus are doing.”

Statement grade

34 / 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.

Procedure 7%Claims 52%Reasoning 26%The question 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 11 wordsthe member talked about AI, which I want to talk about.Procedure Claims · 82 wordsWe know that Canadians right now are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty.Partly on pointUnearned certainty Financial fraud is even becoming a greater threat, and it is not being talked enough about today. Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes to target people already under financial pressure.¹ A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding who are losing their life savings.² Families are being defrauded, and victims are often left to recover on their own. Reasoning · 42 wordsProtecting Canadians requires urgent government intervention: blocking scam calls, holding financial institutions and digital platforms accountable, ensuring that victims have access to support and recovery services, and growing the scale and urgency of this problem at a time when every dollar counts. The question · 24 wordsWhen will the Liberals finally combat fraud using the measures they have, as a key tool in protecting Canadians’ financial security and economic well-being?Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 90

2 of 15 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 “the member talked about AI,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “which I want to talk about.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 4

12 of 15 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 speech it follows, 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 know that Canadians right now are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty.”Touches rising costs in passing only as a lead-in to financial fraud, not the motion’s claims or plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Financial fraud is even becoming a greater threat,”About financial fraud, a subject the motion does not address.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and it is not being talked enough about today.”About the lack of attention to fraud, not the motion’s economic record or plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes to target people already under financial pressure.”About AI-enabled fraud schemes, not the motion on the economy.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding who are losing their life savings.”About fraud affecting seniors, a subject outside the motion.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Families are being defrauded,”About families being defrauded, not the motion’s subject.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and victims are often left to recover on their own.”About support for fraud victims, not the motion’s economic claims or plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Protecting Canadians requires urgent government intervention:”Calls for fraud protection measures, not the economic plan the motion demands.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “blocking scam calls, holding financial institutions and digital platforms accountable, ensuring that victims have access to support and recovery services,”Proposes anti-fraud measures, a subject the motion does not touch.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and growing the scale and urgency of this problem at a time when every dollar counts.”About the scale of the fraud problem, not the motion’s economic indicators or remedy.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “When will the Liberals finally combat fraud using the measures they have,”Asks when the government will combat fraud, not about the motion’s economic plan.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “as a key tool in protecting Canadians’ financial security and economic well-being?”Frames fraud measures as protecting financial security, a subject outside the motion.

Respect · 100

0 of 15 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 · 87

1 of 15 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 “We know that”Asserts shared knowledge in place of any source for the claim about costs and uncertainty

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“Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes”Organized crime is using AI-generated scams, including deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes, to target Canadians.search
2“A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding”A record amount of fraud is affecting seniors in the speaker’s riding.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20