Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Branden Leslie

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-10-08

100 words · 6 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Mario Simard (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, I just listened to my colleague’s response. I wonder if he is aware that the Auditor General released a report on the excise tax today. In it, she pointed out what everyone understands: The wealthy benefit the most. I realize, as he correctly pointed out, that we need targeted measures for farmers and truckers. Their livelihoods must not be jeopardized by the rising cost of diesel and gas. That said, we realize that a one-size-fits-all approach ends up helping the wealthiest while leaving behind those who are genuinely in need. Should we not find a more coherent approach to reducing fossil fuel taxes?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Procedure 14%Claims 25%Reasoning 61%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 14 wordsI will reject elements of that because I can watch the supply chain work.Procedure Claims · 25 wordsLet us take a chicken barn producing chickens.Partly on point It takes diesel to transport them to the processor and the grocery store at very high prices. Reasoning · 61 wordsPeople are then putting that chicken back on the shelf because they cannot afford it and are trying to make tough decisions about what healthy food to put on their children’s plates. It is directly impacting everybody across Canada, at any income level. Those with the lowest incomes who are facing high food prices are making difficult choices for their children.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 82

1 of 5 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 “I will reject elements of that because I can watch the supply chain work.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 55

4 of 5 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 “Let us take a chicken barn producing chickens.”An introductory setup for a chicken barn example, not yet a point on the tax approach asked about.
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 “People are then putting that chicken back on the shelf because they cannot afford it and are trying to make tough decisions about what healthy food to put on their children’s plates.”About consumers’ food affordability struggles, not the question of a more coherent approach to fossil fuel taxes.
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 “It is directly impacting everybody across Canada, at any income level.”About the broad impact of high prices on Canadians, not the tax approach the question proposed.
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 “Those with the lowest incomes who are facing high food prices are making difficult choices for their children.”About low-income families’ food choices, not the coherence of fossil fuel tax policy asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 5 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 5 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 · 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 2026-10-19