Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Dominic LeBlanc

Liberal on International Trade 2026-09-21

102 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Jason Groleau (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, we are going to give him some very important information about the counter-tariffs. The Liberal Party and Prime Minister’s failed negotiations are hurting our economy. Our businesses are paying a fortune. I will give some real examples. The garage door manufacturer Garaga will be paying $1.5 million a month. Beauce Atlas will be paying $550,000 a week. You heard me, Mr. Speaker: $550,000. These costs are putting jobs here at risk, and Canadians are the ones who are going to pay the price. Why did the Minister of Finance ignore the recommendations of businesses in Beauce, Quebec, and Canada?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 71 / 100

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

Claims 50%Positioning 37%Promise 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 51 wordson the contrary, we worked with businesses in Quebec. We were constantly working with union representatives from Quebec, with the Government of Quebec. We worked with business people from across the country because we wanted an agreement that is in Canada’s best economic interest, to strengthen Canada’s economic and cultural sovereignty. Positioning · 38 wordsWe know that the Conservatives would have taken any old deal. Now we see that they do not want to fight for our workers, that they do not want to defend the Canadian industries that are under attack.PositioningStraw man Promise · 13 wordsWe do, however, and that is exactly what we are going to do.Off pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 56

2 of 8 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We know that the Conservatives would have taken any old deal.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Now we see that they do not want to fight for our workers, that they do not want to defend the Canadian industries that are under attack.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 44

4 of 8 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We know that the Conservatives would have taken any old deal.”A claim about what the Conservatives would have done, an attack in place of answering the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Now we see that they do not want to fight for our workers, that they do not want to defend the Canadian industries that are under attack.”An attack on the Conservatives’ willingness to fight, not the question about the minister’s work with businesses.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We do, however,”A connective phrase tied to the preceding attack on the Conservatives rather than the question asked.
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 that is exactly what we are going to do.”Completes the pledge to fight, continuing the attack rather than answering what was asked.

Reasoning · 70

1 of 8 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.

Arguing against a position the other side did not take.What the tags mean “Now we see that they do not want to fight for our workers, that they do not want to defend the Canadian industries that are under attack.”The only support offered is that the Conservatives would have accepted any deal, and the claim itself recasts their questioning of the counter-tariffs as refusing to defend workers rather than engaging their actual position.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“Now we see that they do not want to fight for our workers, that they do not want to defend the Canadian industries that are under attack.”

Because“We know that the Conservatives would have taken any old deal.”

Reason flawedThe only support offered is that the Conservatives would have accepted any deal, and the claim itself recasts their questioning of the counter-tariffs as refusing to defend workers rather than engaging their actual position.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 · 86

1 of 8 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 “that is exactly what we are going to do”The commitment to fight for workers names no measure, date, or success condition.

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