Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

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

109 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Kody Blois (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond. First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence. There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence. The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.”

Statement grade

Average 91 / 100

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

Reasoning 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 109 wordsall those issues are very important. I believe that the greatest threat to our democracy today, if we do not take action on it, is artificial intelligence and the potential for what I call a mischievous volunteer, a third party.Unearned certainty Everything can be tapped into it today through social media and different forms of communication. My concern is that it does not take very much time to cause a lot of confusion, especially when, through the use of AI, there can be a so-called candidate saying something the candidate did not say. It concerns me greatly, and I do not think we have done enough on that particular issue.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 73

1 of 1 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 “if we do not take action on it, is artificial intelligence and the potential for what I call a mischievous volunteer, a third party.”Asserts a superlative ranking of threats without any source or evidence.

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