Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Pierre Poilievre

Conservative on Canadian Fuel Affordability Act 2026-09-22

145 words · 9 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green)

“Madam Speaker, it is a very difficult problem, for those of us who are committed to basing policies on science, to watch the Liberal Party squander what it had, which was basically a puffed-up, false reputation on climate in the first place, and then have the Conservative Party prop the Liberals up at the very moment when the Conservative Party should also say that not only is the Liberal Party driving up the fiscal deficit, but that it is also driving up the climate deficit. Canada now has a worse record on climate, and let this sink in, than the United States does, after one and a half terms of Donald Trump. It matters to Canadians, because affordability also includes running for one’s life from wildfires.”

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Positioning 43%Claims 57%

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

Madam Speaker, Positioning · 12 wordsCanadians are running for their lives to try to pay their bills.Positioning Claims · 37 wordsI would note that we could fight wildfires if we had water bombers instead of spending half a trillion dollars fighting oil and gas and fighting against Canadians using gas at the pump, Partly on pointas the member suggests. Positioning · 8 wordsHowever, I can understand why she is heartbroken.Positioning Claims · 46 wordsFor a decade, the Liberal Prime Minister said that he supported net-zero policies, that he wanted to keep more than half our oil and gas in the ground and that he wanted even higher and broader carbon taxes.¹ He now claims to have changed his mind. Positioning · 42 wordsHe never believed it.Motive imputedUnearned certainty It was all a money grab from the very start. We on this side have been consistent. We are fighting for affordability, for low energy prices and for the massive production of our oil, gas and other resources.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He never believed it”.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 53

5 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 “Canadians are running for their lives to try to pay their bills.”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 “However, I can understand why she is heartbroken.”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 “It was all a money grab from the very start.”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 “We on this side have been consistent.”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 “We are fighting for affordability, for low energy prices and for the massive production of our oil, gas and other resources.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 84

1 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 comment put to the member, and the bill 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 “I would note that we could fight wildfires if we had water bombers instead of spending half a trillion dollars fighting oil and gas and fighting against Canadians using gas at the pump,”Mostly about wildfire funding and water bombers, touching the bill’s fuel-cost subject only in passing.

Respect · 96

1 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.

Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.What the tags mean “He never believed it”Attributes a hidden, dishonest state of mind about his own convictions to the Prime Minister as fact.

Clarity · 96

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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “He never believed it”It asserts certainty about another person’s private beliefs with no source offered.

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“For a decade, the Liberal Prime Minister said that he supported net-zero policies, that he wanted to keep more than half our oil and gas in the ground and that he wanted even higher and broader carbon taxes.”Over the last decade, the Liberal Prime Minister stated that he supported net-zero policies, wanted to keep more than half of Canada’s oil and gas in the ground, and wanted higher and broader carbon taxes.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20