Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Branden Leslie

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-06-08

127 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Marilène Gill (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, we can see my colleague’s love for his constituents and his desire to ensure that Canada’s economy comes out okay, if not better. I did not get a satisfactory answer to my questions when we talked about rigour and transparency. The Conservative Party is talking about inflationary measures, and I was wondering whether my colleague thinks that a sovereign wealth fund is an inflationary measure since the government’s sovereign wealth fund is not being created with money that has already been saved. It is a debt. I am wondering the same thing about the government’s major projects and the pipelines in western Canada. The government is spending money, but do the Conservatives consider that to be inflationary spending?”

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.

Claims 29%Reasoning 66%Promise 5%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 17 wordsCanada led the way with this idea that we could borrow our way to calling something wealth. Reasoning · 33 wordsThe idea of a sovereign wealth fund is a good one, if we are a country that is in a position to create wealth and has executed on the idea of creating wealth. Claims · 20 wordsInstead, we decided to keep our oil and gas in the ground as much as possible over the last decade.¹ Reasoning · 51 wordsThe idea of investing in projects in Canada is a good one. Financing it entirely based on debt and calling that progress is just another example of how the government seems to refuse to accept that things have not been going well for Canadians and that its policies are to blame. Promise · 6 wordsWe can and must do better.Partly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 97

1 of 2 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 can and must do better.”A general call to do better that adds nothing to the answer on the funds and projects asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 · 93

1 of 2 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We can and must do better”A commitment with no actor, measure, date or success condition stated.

Claims · 1

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“we decided to keep our oil and gas in the ground as much as possible over the last decade”Over the last decade, Canadian federal policy has as much as possible kept oil and gas in the ground rather than developed it.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20