Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Michael Kram

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

111 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member’s comments. However, I disagree with the idea that one would have to make a financial deposit in order to be able to say to the people they want to represent that they want their name on the ballot. I am inclined to support the court decision. However, I would again recommend that the member give it more thought. I can recall an incident where someone said to me, “Why is it that the volunteers can collect signatures for your nomination? Why are you not obligated to acquire them?” That might be an alternative. The PROC committee has an opportunity, as soon we can get the legislation to the committee. In second reading, I often promote getting bills to committee—”

Statement grade

B–

Average 70 / 100

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

Greeting 26%Claims 59%Promise 7%Procedure 7%

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

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 29 wordsI would like to congratulate the hon. member on becoming a grandfather for the fourth time, earlier this month. I wish him well with the new bundle of joy.Greeting Claims · 66 wordsI am hopeful that the measures in Bill C-25 are sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee. However, I think it is very telling that its members were the ones behind the 2017 court case, ¹Unearned certaintywhich struck down the requirement of the $1,000 deposit.² It is also very telling that, after that court case, they opened the door to their current disruptive activities. Promise · 8 wordsWe will have to take a wait-and-see approach, Vague promiseProcedure · 8 wordsand we will have to wait and see.ProcedureOff point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 61

3 of 7 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.

Greetings and pleasantries.What the tags mean “I would like to congratulate the hon. member on becoming a grandfather for the fourth time, earlier this month.”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.
Greetings and pleasantries.What the tags mean “I wish him well with the new bundle of joy.”A greeting: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and we will have to wait and see.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 87

2 of 7 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 “We will have to take a wait-and-see approach,”It declines to engage with the point put, offering only a wait-and-see stance in place of an answer.
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 will have to wait and see.”It merely repeats the refusal to answer without adding anything responsive.

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 · 61

2 of 7 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 “I think it is very telling”The phrase asserts significance without offering any source or evidence for the insinuation.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We will have to take a wait-and-see approach”It commits to no action, actor, date or measure for evaluating the bill’s effect.

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“its members were the ones behind the 2017 court case”Members of the longest ballot committee were behind the 2017 court case about the candidacy deposit requirement.search
2“struck down the requirement of the $1,000 deposit”The 2017 court case struck down the $1,000 deposit requirement for candidates under the Canada Elections Act.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16