Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois on Business of Supply 2026-10-22

37 words · 1 sentences · 2 clauses

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

“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in how the Conservatives have tried to frame this as if they were really concerned about culture and heritage, when they want to defund CBC and — An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, that is true. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ behaviour is questionable in regard to CBC Radio. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of funding those two institutions.”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Procedure 24%The ask 76%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 wordsI did not understand what the member was asking, ProcedureThe ask · 28 wordsbut if the question was whether the government should quickly release the $600 million that the Liberals promised, then the answer is yes, they should do it soon.¹No reason given

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 74

1 of 2 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 did not understand what the member was asking,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

Reasoning · 53

1 of 2 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.

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “but if the question was whether the government should quickly release the $600 million that the Liberals promised, then the answer is yes, they should do it soon.”The answer simply says yes to releasing the $600 million, with no ground offered beyond the promise itself, and the admitted uncertainty about the question gives nothing to support the call.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“but if the question was whether the government should quickly release the $600 million that the Liberals promised, then the answer is yes, they should do it soon.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe answer simply says yes to releasing the $600 million, with no ground offered beyond the promise itself, and the admitted uncertainty about the question gives nothing to support the call.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 2 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 · 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“$600 million that the Liberals promised”The Liberal government promised $600 million to the cultural sector.search

Analysed on 2026-10-24