Analysis · Floor speech · beta

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

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

197 words · 14 sentences · 15 clauses

Statement grade

B+

Average 82 / 100

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

Aside 6%Claims 47%Positioning 42%Promise 4%Procedure 2%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 11 wordswe are learning all kinds of things on this wonderful evening.Aside Claims · 17 wordsThe member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert says that he has never seen the federal government interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions.¹ Positioning · 5 wordsThat is actually quite amazing.Positioning Promise · 8 wordsWe will be sending him loads of documentation. Positioning · 14 wordsHe can dive in and get an understanding of what this is all about.Positioning Claims · 75 wordsEarlier, I asked my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, a question. He is a pretty regular participant in debates in the House. He has quite a few hours under his belt, I think. He has been participating in these debates for years, and he apparently knows the Constitution off by heart. I asked him twice whether labour mobility was a federal or a provincial responsibility. Both times, he could not give me an answer.² Positioning · 34 wordsFor a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and the federal government, it is rather surprising that he could not answer such a question.Mockery Procedure · 4 wordsThis raises some questions.Procedure Positioning · 29 wordsI would like to ask my colleague what planet the Liberals are living on, considering that they do not know the various jurisdictions set out in their own Constitution.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and…”.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 66

5 of 6 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “we are learning all kinds of things on this wonderful evening.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “That is actually quite amazing.”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 “He can dive in and get an understanding of what this is all about.”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 “This raises some questions.”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 would like to ask my colleague what planet the Liberals are living on, considering that they do not know the various jurisdictions set out in their own Constitution.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · no score

Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.

Respect · 79

1 of 6 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.

Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.What the tags mean “For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and the federal government, it is rather surprising that he could not answer such a question”Sarcasm aimed at the member for Winnipeg North himself, using feigned praise of his intelligence to ridicule his failure to answer.

Clarity · 100

0 of 6 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 · 2

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“he has never seen the federal government interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions”The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said in the House that he has never seen the federal government interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions.search
2“Both times, he could not give me an answer”Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe asked the member for Winnipeg North twice whether labour mobility is a federal or provincial responsibility, and both times the member did not answer.search

Analysed on 2026-10-29