Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-06-02

186 words · 11 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Cathay Wagantall (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the school food program. We have school food programs in Saskatchewan for kids who come to school hungry. I think it is really important. However, the government committed $216.6 million annually to the food program and is making it permanent. An additional 400,000 children will benefit from this commitment every year. There are 5.5 million students in school right now and 3.5 million are in elementary. With the money the government is giving, it works out to $2.70 per day per child. How is that caring for children? Why does the government not give the money back to the parents through a proper economy and let them feed their own kids?”

Statement grade

A–

Average 86 / 100

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

Procedure 9%Claims 45%Thanks 11%Reasoning 19%Promise 8%Positioning 6%The ask 3%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 16 wordsI was about to give a compliment after the member made reference to the Saskatchewan program.Procedure Claims · 30 wordsOne has to remember that this is not for all children in school. It is for the youngest of children.¹ Provinces and stakeholders have been widely supportive of the program. Thanks · 20 wordsWhat I liked about her question was that she acknowledged it is a good program in the province of Saskatchewan.Thanks Claims · 53 wordsThat is what she implied.Partly on point I would suggest it is a good program for the 400,000-plus children nationwide.² I have been a parliamentarian since 1988, ³and I can tell the member opposite that from virtually day one, I have heard about the issue of education and how important education is to our society.Partly on point Reasoning · 35 wordsPart of that is that a child cannot learn on an empty stomach, which is why it is so important for the government to have established a national program by demonstrating leadership on the issue. Promise · 14 wordsHopefully other provinces and so forth will be able to possibly grow the program, Positioning · 12 wordsbut at least we are making a very strong and positive statement.Positioning The ask · 6 wordsThe Conservatives should reverse their position.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 66

3 of 7 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 “I was about to give a compliment after the member made reference to the Saskatchewan program.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “What I liked about her question was that she acknowledged it is a good program in the province of Saskatchewan.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “but at least we are making a very strong and positive statement.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 79

4 of 7 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 “That is what she implied.”Comments on what the questioner implied, not answering the funding 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 “I have been a parliamentarian since 1988,”About the member’s own years in office, not answering the question on funding.
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 I can tell the member opposite that from virtually day one, I have heard about the issue of education and how important education is to our society.”About the general importance of education over the years, not the funding 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 “The Conservatives should reverse their position.”Urges the Conservatives to change their position, not answering how the funding cares for children.

Respect · 100

0 of 7 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 7 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 · 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“It is for the youngest of children”Canada’s national school food program serves only the youngest school children, not all children in school.search
2“the 400,000-plus children nationwide”Canada’s national school food program is expected to benefit more than 400,000 children nationwide.search
3“I have been a parliamentarian since 1988”Kevin Lamoureux has been a parliamentarian since 1988.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20