Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois on Concurrence in Committee Reports 2026-10-27

117 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Natilien Joseph (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am also from Quebec, and I also serve on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with my colleague, who, I have to admit, does an outstanding job. I have never witnessed the federal government attempting to interfere in matters that fall under Quebec’s jurisdiction. I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks she is protecting Quebec’s jurisdictions by voting against everything here in Ottawa. I think that Quebeckers deserve better than political games. Every time there is a vote on something that benefits Quebec, they vote against it.”

Statement grade

B–

71 / 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.

Procedure 13%The question 25%Claims 53%Positioning 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 7 wordsI know my colleague is from Quebec, ProcedureThe question · 15 wordsbut I am wondering whether he is hearing the same testimony as me in committee. Claims · 54 wordsFor example, during the study on Bill C-266, witnesses from Quebec had to explain, even to the Liberal members, how the system works and why trying to use a one-size-fits-all approach to employment and labour to speed up so-called national projects shows a lack of respect for Quebec’s unique vocational training system, for example.¹Partly on point Positioning · 6 wordsI am not making this up.PositioningOff point Claims · 8 wordsWitnesses from Quebec told us that in committee.Partly on point Positioning · 5 wordsIt is always like this.PositioningOff point Procedure · 8 wordsWe are talking about this subject this evening, ProcedureThe question · 14 wordsbut I am wondering where he is when witnesses from Quebec appear in committee.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 72

4 of 10 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 know my colleague is from Quebec,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I am not making this up.”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 is always like this.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “We are talking about this subject this evening,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 41

6 of 10 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.

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 “but I am wondering whether he is hearing the same testimony as me in committee.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “For example, during the study on Bill C-266, witnesses from Quebec had to explain, even to the Liberal members, how the system works and why trying to use a one-size-fits-all approach to employment and labour to speed up so-called national projects shows a lack of respect for Quebec’s unique vocational training system, for example.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 am not making this up.”The statement is a general affirmation and does not address the question or the subject of federal jurisdiction.
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 “Witnesses from Quebec told us that in committee.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 always like this.”The phrase is a general observation and does not specifically engage with the question of protecting jurisdictions through voting.
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 “but I am wondering where he is when witnesses from Quebec appear in committee.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 10 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“during the study on Bill C-266, witnesses from Quebec had to explain, even to the Liberal members, how the system works”During the committee study on Bill C-266, witnesses from Quebec testified about Quebec’s unique vocational training system and the effects of a one-size-fits-all approach to employment and labour.search

Analysed on 2026-10-29