Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-05-28

402 words · 24 sentences · 32 clauses

Replying to Mel Arnold (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Members of the House are elected to represent Canadians and to advocate on their behalf. Every one of us is sent here to represent the people, to be their voice and advocate and to work on behalf of the people we represent. These are basic and essential principles of representative government that are supposed to be upheld in this place, but the Liberal government seems to have persistent challenges in fulfilling basic requirements of representative government. On May 8, I asked if the Prime Minister would reverse government directive 14. What is directive 14? Well, it is the Liberal government’s directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples, which instructs federal lawyers to limit their advocacy and arguments in litigation in which they are supposed to be representing the Government of Canada, which is supposed to represent the people of Canada. In other words, even if there are sound legal arguments for government lawyers to make in defending the interests of Canadian property rights, the Liberal government has instructed its lawyers to enter the ring with their hands tied behind their backs. With directive 14, the Liberal government has disabled the representatives of the representatives elected by Canadians to fight for the interests of Canadians. The Cowichan decision stated that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles that are the primary method of private home ownership. The Liberal government’s directive 14 was the central factor in the Cowichan case. When I asked on May 8 whether the Prime Minister would reverse directive 14, the Liberal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations responded by dodging my question. The Liberal government issued directive 14. The government lawyers stood down as directed. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles. This has directly undermined the rights of all landowners in B.C. and across Canada. The Liberal talking point and response will likely be that the Conservatives are whipping up emotions and stirring up unwarranted fear, but it is the Liberal government directive that has caused the real fear among Canadians, especially British Columbians. When a representative elected by the people stands in the House and asks if the Liberal government will discard its reckless policy that has caused so much chaos and harm, the Liberal ministers dodge the question. Constituents have contacted me to raise their personal fears for their property rights in the fallout from Cowichan, not because someone else whipped up fear but because of their own fear. The good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies can count on me to raise their concerns in the House, but sadly, they cannot count on the Liberal government to provide reasonable answers. The Liberal government is not representing Canadians’ interests, nor is it defending the rights of Canadians. It is refusing to answer questions raised by members of the House elected by Canadians. All of this is the opposite of how representative government should operate. Canadians deserve to know why.”

Statement grade

C+

Average 67 / 100

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

Procedure 11%Claims 46%Anecdote 3%Positioning 23%The ask 14%Aside 3%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 33 wordsit has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite.Procedure Claims · 51 wordsThe Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it.¹ There were debates for hours in the House.² We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”. Anecdote · 12 wordsI say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon.AnecdotePartly on point Claims · 11 wordsThe most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait.³Off point Positioning · 14 wordsWe get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis.Positioning Claims · 36 wordsI even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons.⁴ The member just spent four minutes explaining, ⁵or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, Positioning · 10 wordsbut there is nothing they can say to justify it.Positioning The ask · 18 wordsI asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. Claims · 17 wordsThe members were challenged to do that. The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.Partly on point Procedure · 10 wordsHere is what she had to say in a response: ProcedureClaims · 71 wordsMr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution.⁶ Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam.⁷ Again, it is available on the website.⁸ There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read. Positioning · 20 wordsInstead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset.PositioningPartly on point Aside · 12 wordsMel Arnold: Perfect, love it. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: You might love it, AsidePositioning · 12 wordsbut it is the reality of it and the member knows that.PositioningPartly on pointUnearned certainty Mr. Speaker, The ask · 40 wordsI would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, Positioning · 35 wordsbut we know he is not going to be able to do that.Unearned certainty It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.PositioningPartly 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 · 46

14 of 42 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue.”Procedure or throat-clearing: 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 have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis.”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 “but there is nothing they can say to justify it.”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 “Here is what she had to say in a response:”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 “Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Mel Arnold:”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Perfect, love it.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Hon. Kevin Lamoureux:”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “You might love it,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but it is the reality of it and the member knows that.”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 “but we know he is not going to be able to do that.”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 “It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 37

26 of 42 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 question on notice, as the member's speech raises 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 Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it.”About the Conservatives’ opposition day motion on the issue, not the question of reversing the directive.
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 “There were debates for hours in the House.”About the hours of debate held on the issue, not the question 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 “We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”.”Criticizes Conservative members’ conduct in the debate on this issue without answering the question.
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 say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon.”Introduces a point about rage bait rather than the directive or the question.
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 most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait.”About the most common phrase worldwide in 2025, not the directive or property rights.
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 get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis.”Characterizes the Conservatives’ conduct on the issue instead of addressing the question.
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 even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons.”About his own past speaking time on the issue, 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 “The member just spent four minutes explaining,”Comments on the member’s speech rather than the question of reversing the directive.
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 “or attempting to explain,”Comments on the member’s speech rather than 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 “and justify a Conservative position,”Describes the member’s defence of the Conservative position without addressing the directive.
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 there is nothing they can say to justify it.”Rejects the member’s position without saying anything on reversing directive 14.
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 asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away.”Issues a challenge about treaties and property loss instead of answering the question.
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 members were challenged to do that.”Restates the challenge about treaties without addressing the directive.
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 member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.”Notes the member’s reference to the minister rather than answering the question.
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 “Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution.”Quotes the minister’s criticism of the Conservatives without saying whether directive 14 will be reversed.
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 “Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority.”About provincial jurisdiction over private property, without addressing the question.
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 member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam.”About the Musqueam agreement’s availability, not the question of reversing the directive.
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 “Again, it is available on the website.”About the agreement being posted online, 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 “There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.”Suggests sections of the agreement to read without addressing the directive.
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 “Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset.”Accuses the Conservatives of using the issue to upset people instead of answering the question.
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 “You might love it,”Reasserts that his characterization is reality without addressing the question.
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 it is the reality of it and the member knows that.”Reasserts his characterization without addressing the question.
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 challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place.”Challenges the member to name someone who lost property under treaties instead of answering the question.
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 look forward to him providing a name,”Continues the challenge about naming a person, 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 “but we know he is not going to be able to do that.”Predicts the member cannot meet the challenge without addressing the directive.
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 does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.”Criticizes the member for stoking fear rather than addressing the question.

Respect · 100

0 of 42 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 · 86

2 of 42 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 “it is the reality of it”The phrase asserts something as settled fact in place of giving a source or evidence.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “we know he is not going to be able to do that”The claim rests on the formula ‘we know’ rather than any source or argument.

Claims · 8

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“brought forward an opposition day motion on it”The Conservatives brought forward an opposition day motion on the directive 14 / Cowichan issue.search
2“There were debates for hours in the House”The House debated the directive 14 / Cowichan issue for hours.search
3“The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait”‘Rage bait’ was the most common phrase used worldwide in 2025.search
4“spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons”Kevin Lamoureux spoke for over 20 minutes in the House about the directive 14 / Cowichan issue on a recent sitting day.search
5“The member just spent four minutes”Mel Arnold spoke for four minutes in the adjournment debate immediately before this reply.search
6“the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution”The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said in the House that the Conservatives had not read the Musqueam agreement, litigation principle 14 or the Canadian Constitution.search
7“The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam”The day before, Mel Arnold spoke in the House about the ‘secret’ Musqueam agreement.search
8“it is available on the website”The Musqueam agreement is available on a government website, including sections 5.1 and 5.2.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20