Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jeff Kibble

Conservative on Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 2026-05-29

129 words · 9 sentences · 13 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face. Under the Conservative Party, they actually had just below 1% of GDP going to Canada’s military. The current Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, made a commitment to bring it up to 2% of Canada’s GDP. We accomplished that months after. Before the end of last year, we achieved the 2%. We provided support, financial pay and so forth, investing in the military and building a military industry. That is what this government has done. What did the Conservative government do? It did zip, nothing. In fact, it closed veterans offices. Imagine what—”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Positioning 16%Claims 84%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 6 wordsthe member opposite’s question was ill-informed.Positioning Claims · 86 wordsThe 2% NATO spending that the government constantly boasts about is truly an illusion. Money was shuffled.Hidden agency The Coast Guard, which is not operationally deployable, was accounted for, and that is not within the NATO regulations. In fact, I would like to draw the member opposite’s attention to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the gold and global standard for identifying government and NATO spending, which said that the discrepancy was 0.4%.¹ In other words, Canada has only actually spent, by this gold standard assessment, 1.6%.² Positioning · 12 wordsThis is another Liberal illusion, and Canadians need to see that reality.Positioning Claims · 22 wordsOf note, I will add that Canada was the only country mentioned with such a large discrepancy in our alleged 2% spending.³ Positioning · 3 wordsIt is shameful.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 79

4 of 5 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 “the member opposite’s question was ill-informed.”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 “This is another Liberal illusion,”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 Canadians need to see that reality.”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 is shameful.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 5 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 bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 5 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 · 97

1 of 5 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.

Wording that hides who did something, or who will.What the tags mean “Money was shuffled”A passive that names no actor for the alleged shuffling, though who did it is the point.

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“which said that the discrepancy was 0.4%.”SIPRI reported a 0.4% discrepancy in Canada’s claimed NATO defence spending of 2% of GDP.search
2“In other words, Canada has only actually spent, by this gold standard assessment, 1.6%.”By SIPRI’s assessment, Canada actually spent 1.6% of GDP on defence, not the claimed 2%.search
3“Canada was the only country mentioned with such a large discrepancy”Canada was the only country that SIPRI mentioned as having such a large discrepancy between its claimed and actual NATO defence spending.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20