Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Strong and Free Elections Act 2026-04-24

101 words · 8 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Yves Perron (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I will begin my question with a comment. I did not raise a point of order, but the member referred to the member for Terrebonne by her given name rather than by her riding name, which should not happen in the House. Perhaps that escaped the Speaker’s attention, so I just wanted to give my friend opposite a friendly reminder of that. I do not have an issue with anything he said except that. Here is the question that I want to ask. The bill before us this morning seeks to prevent people from signing more than one nomination paper. I think it is a mistake to do that because it could result in fewer candidates running in an election. Of course, one of the objectives of this bill is to limit the number of candidates. We agree with that objective, but we do not think that this particular measure is necessary. The other measures in the bill are more than sufficient to achieve that end. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the fact that voters are being asked to sign only one nomination paper. I think that poses a risk of making their votes public, because people will sign only the nomination papers of the candidate they plan to vote for. That is a significant concern.”

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.

Procedure 13%Aside 13%Claims 20%Promise 54%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 2 wordsI apologize.Procedure Aside · 13 wordsThe member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual, and we are very pleased.Aside Procedure · 7 wordsI understand what the member is saying.Procedure Claims · 20 wordsThe government has already put forward the legislation, and it is fairly substantive. A number of changes are being proposed. Procedure · 4 wordsThere is an opportunity.Procedure Promise · 55 wordsAs much as possible, we want to try to build consensus on the many different aspects within the legislation.Vague promise If there are some specifics, I would be happy, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately trying to provide some advice on the legislation, to advance it within the government if the member feels frustrated in any way.Off 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 · 69

5 of 17 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 apologize.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “The member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “and we are very pleased.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I understand what the member is saying.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “There is an opportunity.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 0

11 of 17 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 bill 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 “I apologize.”Apology over the naming incident, not the question on nomination papers.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “The member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual,”Praise for another member, unrelated to the question asked.
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 we are very pleased.”General remark continuing the apology exchange, not the question.
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 understand what the member is saying.”Acknowledges the member’s point without responding to the substance of 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 “The government has already put forward the legislation,”Restates that the government introduced the bill instead of addressing the one-signature measure.
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 it is fairly substantive.”Vague praise of the bill that does not engage the concern raised.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “A number of changes are being proposed.”Generic statement about proposed changes with no link to the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “There is an opportunity.”Empty remark offering nothing responsive to the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “As much as possible, we want to try to build consensus on the many different aspects within the legislation.”Speaks to hoping for consensus generally rather than answering the concern about vote secrecy.
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 there are some specifics, I would be happy,”Offers to consider specifics without answering the specific 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 “as the parliamentary secretary ultimately trying to provide some advice on the legislation, to advance it within the government if the member feels frustrated in any way.”Offers to relay the member’s concerns rather than answering what was asked.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

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.

Clarity · 71

1 of 17 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we want to try to build consensus”A commitment to consensus with no actor, date, measure or success condition attached.

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 2026-09-16