Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-06-03

510 words · 15 sentences · 21 clauses

Replying to Matt Strauss (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because, on May 6, I asked the Liberal Minister of Health how much more money she was planning on giving Canada Health Infoway, given that it had blown $300 million on PrescribeIT for no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. She answered that the CEO of Canada Health Infoway’s “behaviour was [totally] unacceptable”, and that is why she asked the board of directors to fire him. Then she said that she was going to give Canada Health Infoway another $50 million this year. I will say, I am grateful that she gave a clear-cut, numerical answer rather than dodging the question. That is commendable. However, that clear-cut, numerical answer was totally unacceptable. Why would she give such a backward organization another $50 million this year? That is my question. I have a bit more time, so I want to say that I took the unprecedented step tonight of emailing this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health’s staff. I would never break the rules in this place and comment on the presence or absence of another member; however, I do want to share that I have a terrible feeling that I will be disappointed and that neither of them will answer my question tonight. When this organization came to health committee, I asked its chair, after $4 billion had been pumped into this organization, after 20 years, could he name one tangible program, something it managed, directed, built or designed, that is currently benefiting taxpayers? He could not. He only said that it rolled out a lot of federal funding, answering in vague platitudes. It seems to me that Canada Health Infoway has become a slush fund. The Liberals shovel money at it and then Liberal insiders shovel money around, including to lobbying firms such as Crestview Strategy and, I think, Summer Strategies was the other one. Obviously, it is badly run. The Liberals say it is independent, but then the health minister calls it up and gets the CEO fired. Why would they give such a backward organization another $50 million this year?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 80 / 100

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

Procedure 5%Positioning 13%Claims 21%Anecdote 8%Reasoning 53%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 21 wordsI hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue.Procedure Positioning · 22 wordsThere is a big difference between the Conservatives’ approach and the government’s approach in dealing with the important issue of health care.PositioningPartly on point Claims · 46 wordsThe issue the government has been attempting to deal with is something that incorporates the Internet and AI and includes many different stakeholders. The purpose of it is to see how we can deliver a better service to Canadians in the whole area of health care. Anecdote · 42 wordsI had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months, ¹and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received.Anecdote Claims · 38 wordsWhen people go from one doctor’s office to another doctor’s office and then to a pharmacy, I suspect they are all getting very similar information, information that is advantageous to the consumer or client, the individual receiving it. Reasoning · 141 wordsI say that because I think it is important for us to recognize that as we advance through technology, there is a role for a national government to look at ways it could potentially complement or, in many ways, lead the reforms or manage the changes that are necessary in order to deliver the quality of health care that Canadians expect and deserve. That means, at times, that when we take that leadership role, if there is no take-up on it from other jurisdictions, provinces in particular, at some point in time, we need to recognize that we might have to change what the initial objectives might have been. It does not take away from the fact that the government does have a responsibility in delivering, as much as possible, and contributing to the best health care system we can have. Positioning · 46 wordsWhat I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table. I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide, where it can, some leadership on important files.Positioning Reasoning · 100 wordsI am sure if the member were to consult with his constituents, he would find that his constituents, like mine, want a national government to show where there are opportunities for technology. Even though it might not have developed to the degree we would have liked to see in terms of the buy-in, I believe that at the end of the day, we will have a stronger health care system because there will be other entities, whether territories or provinces, that will be able to reflect on what Ottawa was attempting to do and learn from it in different ways.Vague promise Claims · 21 wordsI would suggest that there are many different stakeholders in our health care system, whether they are pharmacists, clients or doctors, Reasoning · 29 wordsand at the end of the day we all have a way to contribute in managing the changes that are necessary to ensure that we have first-quality health care. Procedure · 4 wordsAt times, there might—Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 56

8 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue.”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 “There is a big difference between the Conservatives’ approach and the government’s approach in dealing with the important issue of health care.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months,”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received.”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 “What I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table.”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 “I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide,”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 “where it can, some leadership on important files.”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 “At times, there might—”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 94

1 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 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 “There is a big difference between the Conservatives’ approach and the government’s approach in dealing with the important issue of health care.”A contrast between the parties’ approaches, not a reason for the $50 million asked about.

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 · 71

1 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 will have a stronger health care system”The speaker predicts improvement with no actor, measure or success condition named.

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“I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months”Kevin Lamoureux visited a doctor or two in the six months before June 3, 2026.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20