Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Christine Normandin

Bloc Québécois on Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders 2026-04-27

158 words · 5 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the real basic here. If there is a majority makeup on the floor of the House of Commons, our rules, tradition and heritage, not only in Canada, but in the Commonwealth, are that there is a majority on the committees. I would like to pick up on the point that the member made in regard to reducing committee membership if the government did not have a majority. Can members imagine if we had won with 172 seats and someone crossed the floor over to the opposition so it would no longer be a majority? I would be fairly confident that the unholy coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives would get rid of the majority on the committees, and they would have a valid argument to do so. I think there is a double standard that the opposition today is trying to apply. A majority in the House means a majority on committees. Does she not agree with that principle?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Positioning 18%Procedure 9%Claims 57%Reasoning 16%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 17 wordsI get the impression that the parliamentary secretary spent my entire speech not actually listening to me.Positioning Procedure · 14 wordsI said it once, I said it again, I have repeated it ad nauseam: ProcedurePositioning · 11 wordsWe do not agree with how they scraped together their majority, PositioningClaims · 90 wordsbut the fact remains that the government has a majority, ¹and, as we have said repeatedly, the composition of the committees must reflect that. We disagree primarily because there was no consultation, contrary to the House’s century-old tradition regarding committee composition.² Furthermore, we disagree with the formula the Liberals are using, since they are claiming a share that is ultimately not as proportional as it would have been if it had been “6-4-1”, for example.³ Other possibilities, other alternatives and other options could have been discussed with the opposition parties, Partly on pointReasoning · 26 wordswhich would likely have been eager to make their voices heard, including regarding the prospect of a reversal if the government were to lose its majority.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 66

3 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I get the impression that the parliamentary secretary spent my entire speech not actually listening to me.”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 “I said it once, I said it again, I have repeated it ad nauseam:”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 “We do not agree with how they scraped together their majority,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 70

3 of 6 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 motion under debate.

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 “We disagree primarily because there was no consultation, contrary to the House’s century-old tradition regarding committee composition.”About the lack of consultation on the changes, not the principle that a House majority carries to committees.
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 “Furthermore, we disagree with the formula the Liberals are using, since they are claiming a share that is ultimately not as proportional as it would have been if it had been “6-4-1”, for example.”About the proportionality of the seat formula, not the principle asked about.
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 “Other possibilities, other alternatives and other options could have been discussed with the opposition parties,”About alternatives that could have been discussed, not the majority principle.

Respect · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 3

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“the government has a majority”The Liberal government holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons as of the April 2026 debate on changes to the Standing Orders.search
2“the House’s century-old tradition regarding committee composition”The House of Commons has a roughly century-old tradition of consultation regarding committee composition.search
3“a share that is ultimately not as proportional as it would have been if it had been “6-4-1””The committee composition formula the Liberals are using gives the parties a less proportional share than a ‘6-4-1’ formula would have.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20