Analysis · Debate question · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Report Stage 2026-05-04

168 words · 9 sentences · 10 clauses

Following a speech by Melissa Lantsman (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue from where I left off. The bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command. We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence. We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency. We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case. I think that is the most important change. We included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work. Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. That is not really how it is supposed to work. Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make. We certainly hope they will reconsider, because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, and we owe them this in return. I urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.”

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.

Claims 65%Positioning 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 10 wordsthe member opposite appeals to members of the Canadian Forces. Positioning · 16 wordsI, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate.Positioning Claims · 100 wordsThis has been a long time coming.Partly on point Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long and why the government has taken so long to bring forward legislation on the issue.² We were being criticized. Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago.¹ We are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there.Vague promise The Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security, Positioning · 42 wordsand we have a government committed to advancing it.Partly on pointVague promise Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?PositioningOff point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 57

3 of 10 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, too, would appeal to the members of the Canadian Forces who are following this debate.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and we have a government committed to advancing it.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 54

5 of 10 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 speech it follows, and the bill 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 “This has been a long time coming.”A general remark that the reform is overdue, without addressing the point put or the bill’s provisions.
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 are already advancing a total package to reinforce how important it is that we have respect within our forces, that we grow the forces and that they are going to be there.”About the government’s broader agenda for the forces, not the bill’s amendments or the point raised.
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 Canadian Armed Forces is a part of our national security,”A general statement about the forces and national security, not about the bill or the point put.
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 “and we have a government committed to advancing it.”Praise of the government’s commitment generally, without addressing the bill’s provisions or the point 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 “Why does the Conservative Party want us to drag our feet, whether it is on the financing of our forces or any other measure that we have proposed to the House of Commons?”About the Conservative record on military financing and other measures, subjects the bill does not touch.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 · 67

2 of 10 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 are already advancing a total package”The government’s own action is asserted without any named measure, date or success condition.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “committed to advancing it”The commitment names no concrete step, date or measure by which it could be checked.

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“Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government a year ago”Canada elected a new Prime Minister and a new government about a year before this debate.search
2“Earlier this morning, one of the members commented on the bill, asking what was taking so long”Earlier on May 4, 2026, a member in the House commented on Bill C-11, asking why the government had taken so long to bring forward the legislation.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20