Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Luc Berthold

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-10-22

173 words · 8 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the motion.

“Madam Speaker, the member opposite said the leader of the Conservative Party always, and he emphasized the word “always”, makes good decisions. I disagree, and I will give two very clear examples. Does the member really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he suggested that we should fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Does the member opposite really believe that the leader of the Conservative Party was right when he recommended that Canadians buy cryptocurrency, which ultimately ended up in losing tens of thousands of dollars for people? That was his recommendation back then. I wonder if the member opposite believes that was a good thing for the leader of the Conservative Party to do, let alone opposing all the affordability measures that the leader of the Conservative Party continues to say no to.”

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.

Positioning 22%Claims 60%Reasoning 12%The question 6%

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

Madam Speaker, Positioning · 3 wordsyes, I agree.Positioning Claims · 16 wordsIt was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there.³ Positioning · 31 wordsIf my colleague had listened to my leader’s advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members.Positioning Claims · 20 wordsAt the time, cryptocurrency had lost value, ¹but I would point out that that is no longer the case today.² Reasoning · 20 wordsIf the measures my colleague is talking about had worked, there would not be millions of people using food banks. Claims · 68 wordsI would not hear stories from people who start crying at the grocery store checkout because they are short of money and are forced to take essentials out of their cart. I would not get calls from people asking me personally what they are going to do, because they tried to pay the cashier, but their card was declined and they were ashamed that they could not pay. Positioning · 4 wordsThat is the reality, PositioningUnearned certaintyThe question · 11 wordsand I do not understand why the Liberals are ignoring it.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 · 70

3 of 16 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 “yes, I agree.”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 “If my colleague had listened to my leader’s advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members.”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 “That is the reality,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 0

12 of 16 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 “yes, I agree.”The speaker agrees with a past political point rather than addressing the current motion.
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 was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there.”The clause addresses the identity of a former official mentioned in the off-topic point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “If my colleague had listened to my leader’s advice, he might be rich today and might no longer be here in the House, to the great relief of many opposition members.”The clause constitutes a personal attack on the opposition member regarding their policy views.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “At the time, cryptocurrency had lost value,”The clause refers to a subject (cryptocurrency) that was raised in the off-topic point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but I would point out that that is no longer the case today.”The clause responds to a statement made regarding cryptocurrency in the off-topic point put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “If the measures my colleague is talking about had worked, there would not be millions of people using food banks.”The clause discusses the issue of food bank usage rather than the cultural levies or payments proposed in the motion.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I would not hear stories from people who start crying at the grocery store checkout because they are short of money and are forced to take essentials out of their cart.”The clause relates to the cost of living and grocery prices rather than the motion’s content.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I would not get calls from people asking me personally what they are going to do,”The clause refers to financial pressure related to the cost of living.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “because they tried to pay the cashier,”The clause describes the failure of payment at a register, relating to the cost of living.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but their card was declined and they were ashamed that they could not pay.”The clause describes personal financial hardship regarding payments for goods.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is the reality,”This clause is a summary statement of the surrounding discussion about hardship.
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 I do not understand why the Liberals are ignoring it.”The clause targets the Liberal government’s perceived neglect of the cost of living, not the cultural policy debated.

Respect · 100

0 of 16 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 · 96

1 of 16 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 “That is the reality”The phrase asserts a framing as settled fact in place of a source.

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“At the time, cryptocurrency had lost value,”At the time, the value of cryptocurrency had decreased.search
2“that is no longer the case today.”The situation regarding the loss of value of cryptocurrency is not true today.search
3“It was actually the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who is no longer there.”The individual who held the position of governor of the Bank of Canada was no longer in the position.search

Analysed on 2026-10-24