Analysis · Debate question · beta

Elizabeth May

Green on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-05-28

151 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Following a speech by Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, first off, I compliment the leader of the Green Party in terms of her concern and the way she is carrying herself on such an important issue. I think Canadians as a whole are very much concerned. I do not think I am unique at all. I love Canada. I have always put Canada first, and I would like to think I would be there to support Canada in whatever way I can, and try to be positive and encourage all members, whether they are a member of parliament from Alberta or outside Alberta, to be, as much as possible, talking about things that are positive. There is so much positivity about our federation as one nation, historically, today and no doubt into the future. We will be able to continue to have the best quality of life, I would suggest, in the world. In regard to the concerns the member raised, I would just repeat the one quick sentence the government House leader said at the time. He said, “foreign interference at any level and transnational repression at any level of our democracy are absolutely unacceptable.” We went through an interesting process over the last couple of years when we had a foreign interference inquiry. We had standing committees dealing with foreign interference indirectly. We have had Canada elections going through experiences of dealing with foreign interference. The commissioner of Canada elections, from what I understand, also has some concerns. There is a genuine feeling that we need to be supportive and very observant, watching and ensuring that there is a sense of accountability in terms of the nation’s best interest. With regard to foreign interference, we have a substantial piece of legislation before PROC. I am not too sure if the member had the opportunity to present at PROC. We have brought forward a number of amendments that are going to protect not only our election period issues related to foreign interference, but now for the first time, the time in between elections. This is something the government has brought forward in Bill C-25. There has been a lot learned by the commission and other inputs, if I can put it that way, in dealing with the issue of foreign interference. If we just go back a couple of years, we saw how foreign interference was being demonstrated during the pandemic and the protests that took place here in Ottawa and other jurisdictions. It was not just Ottawa. There were other jurisdictions where we know that there were outside contributions being made here in Canada and it raised the issue. Whether we are talking about CSIS or about the parliamentary security standing committee we have, there are opportunities for us to have faith and confidence, number one, in the people of Alberta and, number two, in the systems that are in place to protect the integrity of the system. I, for one, would suggest that the member continue to be diligent, as I am sure the government will be.”

Statement grade

36 / 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.

Thanks 19%Claims 26%Reasoning 26%The ask 28%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 28 wordsin the minute I have left, first of all, I want to thank to the hon. representative of the government here in the House. This was very helpful.Thanks Claims · 31 wordsI think we need to, as Canadians, as settler culture people, understand how profoundly fortunate we are that indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution.¹ Reasoning · 40 wordsWith the honour of the Crown being at stake, the treaties achieved by the treaty peoples of Alberta with the Crown and the indigenous nations of Alberta with the Crown are probably our best way to hold the country together. The ask · 43 wordsThe federal government should be in court every step of the way, joining with the Mikisew Cree and others in ensuring an injunction against the very idea that lands that were committed to indigenous peoples before the province of Alberta existed are protected, Claims · 9 wordsand treaty rights protect us all and protect Canada.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for
Off topicOnly 6% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 75

2 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “in the minute I have left, first of all, I want to thank to the hon. representative of the government here in the House.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “This was very helpful.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 6

4 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 speech it follows.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “as settler culture people, understand how profoundly fortunate we are that indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution.”About section 35 indigenous rights, not the foreign interference question or the protections 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 “With the honour of the Crown being at stake, the treaties achieved by the treaty peoples of Alberta with the Crown and the indigenous nations of Alberta with the Crown are probably our best way to hold the country together.”About Alberta treaties holding the country together, not the foreign interference concern 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 “The federal government should be in court every step of the way, joining with the Mikisew Cree and others in ensuring an injunction against the very idea that lands that were committed to indigenous peoples before the province of Alberta existed are protected,”A call for the government to join an injunction over treaty lands, not the foreign interference 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 “and treaty rights protect us all and protect Canada.”About treaty rights protecting Canada, not the foreign interference issue discussed.

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 · 1

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“indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution”Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution protects indigenous rights and rights holders.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20