Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Pierre Poilievre

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-10-06

183 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Elizabeth May (Green). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure for me, as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, to be able to put a question to the leader of the official opposition. It is rare that we have this chance leader to leader. I wonder if the member would like to comment on the fact that so many billions of dollars of subsidies are going to projects that are primarily based in the United States. For instance, we hear a lot about Ksi Lisims’ LNG project that will be a floating LNG terminal. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Western LNG, which is, of course, Texas-owned and -based. The so-called LNG Canada operation is 40% Shell oil. Other than Shell, the next owners are Petronas from Malaysia, PetroChina and Korea’s state-owned gas company. There is nothing Canadian about it, except the name. Does this bother the leader of the official opposition?”

Statement grade

30 / 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.

Claims 38%Reasoning 62%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 6 wordsthe member’s question was about subsidies. Reasoning · 17 wordsCanada’s oil and gas industry should be so wildly profitable that it does not need any subsidies. Claims · 36 wordsIn fact, LNG Canada, the first project, which was approved by the previous Conservative government, did not require subsidies, even though it is the single biggest project in the history of the country at $40 billion.¹ Reasoning · 1 wordsWhy? Claims · 27 wordsIt is because it is wildly profitable to take natural gas, which goes for $2.50 in Canada, ²and sell it for $25, 10 times more, in Asia.³ Reasoning · 96 wordsWhy do we need subsidies now? It is because the Liberal government blocks these projects, ties them up in red tape, taxes them to a level that is too high, breaks our legs and then says we should thank them for giving us a crutch. In reality, we believe we should get out of the way and off the backs of our energy sector so that these projects are profitable, pay into the treasury, rather than take out, employ people and make us richer, make life more affordable and make us more autonomous here at home.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicNone of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 11 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 · 0

11 of 11 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

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 motion 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 “the member’s question was about subsidies.”A note about what the member’s question concerned, not the motion on diesel taxes and production.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Canada’s oil and gas industry should be so wildly profitable that it does not need any subsidies.”About subsidies to the oil and gas industry generally, not the diesel tax relief the motion proposes.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “In fact, LNG Canada, the first project,”About LNG Canada’s approval history, which 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 “which was approved by the previous Conservative government, did not require subsidies, even though it is the single biggest project in the history of the country at $40 billion.”About LNG Canada’s subsidies and size, not diesel prices, taxes or production.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Why?”A rhetorical question about project subsidies, not the motion’s diesel measures.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is because it is wildly profitable to take natural gas,”About natural gas export profitability, not the motion on diesel.
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 goes for $2.50 in Canada,”About the domestic natural gas price, not diesel taxes or production.
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 sell it for $25, 10 times more, in Asia.”About Asian gas sale prices, 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 “Why do we need subsidies now?”A rhetorical question about subsidies to projects, not the diesel plan before the House.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is because the Liberal government blocks these projects, ties them up in red tape, taxes them to a level that is too high, breaks our legs and then says we should thank them for giving us a crutch.”About the government’s blocking and taxing of energy projects generally, not the diesel measures the motion proposes.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “In reality, we believe we should get out of the way and off the backs of our energy sector so that these projects are profitable, pay into the treasury, rather than take out, employ people and make us richer, make life more affordable and make us more autonomous here at home.”A general position on getting out of the energy sector’s way, not on the motion’s diesel tax and production plan.

Respect · 100

0 of 11 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 · 100

0 of 11 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 3

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“approved by the previous Conservative government, did not require subsidies, even though it is the single biggest project in the history of the country at $40 billion”LNG Canada, a $40 billion project described as the single biggest in Canadian history, was approved by the previous Conservative government and did not require subsidies.search
2“goes for $2.50 in Canada”Canadian natural gas sells for $2.50 per unit in Canada.search
3“sell it for $25, 10 times more, in Asia”Natural gas sells for $25 per unit in Asia, roughly ten times the Canadian price.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19