Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-04-30

103 words · 7 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Gord Johns (NDP)

“Mr. Speaker, we hear the Prime Minister and my colleague compare the sovereign wealth fund to the Norwegian fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is independent, and it is only for public good. It is not used for political interests or what the Liberals call nation-building projects, which could end up funnelling money to Danielle Smith’s dream pipeline through the north coast, billions of dollars for a pipeline that the private sector does not even have support for, never mind support from coastal first nations that are opposed to it. Does my colleague agree that the sovereign wealth fund should be independent and only for public good, not for supporting private projects that are not economically viable?”

Statement grade

B–

73 / 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.

Claims 49%Reasoning 37%The ask 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 37 wordsI have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects. The sovereign wealth fund has potential.Partly on point The member referred to pipelines.Off point It goes far beyond those types of projects. Reasoning · 38 wordsI am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada, as they do. The ask · 8 wordsI would encourage the NDP to support it. Claims · 13 wordsI am not too sure what the New Democrats’ position is on it, The ask · 7 wordsbut I hope they will support it.Partly on 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 · 100

0 of 9 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 · 43

9 of 9 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 “I have full confidence in the Major Projects Office being able to make recommendations and decisions on projects.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 “The sovereign wealth fund has potential.”Says the fund has potential but does not address independence or public-good use.
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 referred to pipelines.”A procedural note that the member mentioned pipelines, not a point on the fund’s independence.
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 “It goes far beyond those types of projects.”About the range of projects the fund could cover, not whether it should be independent or serve public good.
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 “I am hopeful that we will see funds ultimately flow to all the different regions of the country, recognizing that all regions have a great deal to contribute to the wealth and future of Canada,”About hopes for regional distribution of funds, not the independence question asked.
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 “as they do.”Continues the point about regions contributing, not the question asked.
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 “I would encourage the NDP to support it.”Urges the NDP to support the fund instead of addressing independence or public-good use.
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 “I am not too sure what the New Democrats’ position is on it,”About the NDP’s position, not the question on the fund’s structure.
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 “but I hope they will support it.”Repeats the appeal for support without addressing independence or public-good use.

Respect · 100

0 of 9 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 9 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 · 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 2026-10-20