Procedure 4% Claims 89% Reasoning 3% Anecdote 2% The ask 1% Promise 1%
Structure · 16 steps
Claims · 17
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 15 words I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Milton East—Halton Hills South. Procedure Claims · 68 words I think we all know that fraud in Canada is a growing problem. Unearned certainty Stories are now appearing in the media virtually every week. Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024.1 Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion.2 The rate of frauds being reported remains low, with an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported, 3 Reasoning · 11 words so the problem is understated and in the billions of dollars. Claims · 50 words We know that fraudsters generally target the most vulnerable people among us, such as seniors, new Canadians and young people. Bank fraud in particular is a significant concern in Canada, yet investigations by financial institutions often end with banks’ blaming the very customers who trusted them with protecting their money. Reasoning · 27 words This raises the issue of the proper responsibility of banks to their depositors and the role of the federal government in regulating or not regulating them properly. Off point Procedure · 36 words I would like to share with the House some real examples that have been brought to my attention recently by constituents in Vancouver Kingsway. For case number one, I will read from the letter I received: Procedure Claims · 938 words “In early September, my dad, a 67 year old retiree called me in a panic. He had just realized he had been scammed out of his entire life savings and more. He was involved in what we believe was a ‘pig butchering’ scam. He was told he was investing in cryptocurrency—he had a wallet which showed incredibly high returns. When he went to withdrawal, he was hit with yet another fee of $90,000 USD to do so. His ‘partner’ who was to be paying the fees to share in the investment suddenly said she didn’t have anymore money. This is when he realized. “...Going through the details of the scam ended up showing that my dad didn’t purchase crypto in a typical way. He was directed to the bank to wire money to several different locations. Locally here in Vancouver, then to New York and then finally to Vietnam. “My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025 and thus the transactions begun.4 Every 10-14 days my dad went to the same branch on Mainland Street in Yaletown and sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam under the guise of ‘purchasing auto parts.’5 Every single time he wire transferred the money, the same branch manager signed off on it. No questions asked. By the end of August he had drained most of his RRSPs, remortgaged his home, took out personal loans, and borrowed from family and friends. l’m dumbfounded by the fact that the branch manager at this location never noticed the red flags: a brand new customer, a senior retiree, purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts from a personal bank account.6 “I filed a complaint against BMO.... They refuse to answer if my dad was ever reported to FINTRAC. They replied that he signed off on the wire transfers that stated if he was being coached into cryptocurrency he shouldn’t go through with it—none of the wire transfers use that type of language. Further, BMO states that they have a policy in place for prevention of fraud with seniors—obviously this policy wasn’t followed in this instance. There has been zero accountability for what happened from BMO. They have said they will not return or refund any of the money and that this was completely my dad’s own doing. “My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026.7 Months of stress and uncertainty, embarrassment and emotional toll had taken place. He had nothing. Forced to sell his condo to pay off some of his debt but seemingly about to be homeless. “Fraud is abundant. We read about it all the time. I simply don’t understand how the bank could see such large sums of money to be transferred with no regard. And at this point, they simply do not care.... “But I do want something good to come out of his death—more people need to hear stories like this for real change to happen.... “The lack of responsibility by BMO has changed the course of my life. My dad will not get to watch [my or my sisters’] families grow up. He will never financially contribute towards us. We are now left with the bill of his death and bankrupting his estate. lt’s a devastating end.” Example number two is Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior who was the victim of a devastating financial fraud that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of her retirement life savings.8 Fraudsters impersonated law enforcement and coerced her into selling her retirement investments in her registered retirement accounts and wiring the money abroad to them from local RBC and TD branches. She lost some $400,000 in her life savings.9 To add insult to injury, she now faces a significant tax liability from the CRA due to this, despite already having suffered a complete financial loss of much of her retirement savings. Because she withdrew RSP savings, which were then stolen, she now has to pay taxes on these monies, even though they have been lost to her. The NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no.10 1, aimed at strengthening protections for Canadians targeted by bank-related fraud. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them, 11 and we see nothing addressing this in these estimates. Our amendments would have required banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud, unless they have been grossly negligent in relation to that fraud. Banks would have also been required to report anonymized consumer-targeted fraud data, so we could get a better understanding of the scope of this problem. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada would have been required to conduct regular unannounced audits of banks’ anti-fraud practices and policies, publish detailed fraud statistics and make its annual fraud report public, so that we could make sure that banks are actually following through on the policies they claim to have. The amendments also sought to make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding. These measures were recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch, 12 which argued that without mandatory audits, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, existing anti-fraud rules would remain ineffective. The United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam, 13 which is a scam wherein the scammer convinces the victim to make a payment, must be reimbursed, unless there is gross negligence on their part. In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in cases of fraud involving a consumer’s bank account.14 Off point Procedure · 9 words I want to quote Democracy Watch, which noted this: Procedure Claims · 104 words It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place. The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and, 15 as a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply.... The new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations... Off point Procedure · 4 words Option consommateurs noted this: Procedure Claims · 131 words We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money, but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud. By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses. The example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this. According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before].16 With the advent of AI and growing technology, the prospects of fraud growing in this country are chilling. Anecdote · 26 words Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere. Anecdote Claims · 28 words This is the kind of technology that exists now, yet we are operating on outdated legislation. Although the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget, 17 The ask · 22 words which is a good step forward, it can and should do much more to help protect Canadians from fraud in this country. Promise · 11 words New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen. Off point Vague promise
At a glance
Lost points for Off point ×86 Procedure ×6 Unearned certainty Anecdote Vague promise
Off topic None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 91
7 of 95 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.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Milton East—Halton Hills South.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I would like to share with the House some real examples that have been brought to my attention recently by constituents in Vancouver Kingsway.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “For case number one, I will read from the letter I received:” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I want to quote Democracy Watch,” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “which noted this:” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “Option consommateurs noted this:” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Anecdote A story that illustrates instead of making a point. What the tags mean → “Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere.” An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 0
86 of 95 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 motion under debate.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “I think we all know that fraud in Canada is a growing problem.” About fraud in Canada generally, not the defence capital expenditure vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Stories are now appearing in the media virtually every week.” About media coverage of fraud, not the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024.” About fraud loss statistics, not the defence expenditure motion.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion.” About reported fraud losses since 2021, not the vote under debate.
Off point 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 rate of frauds being reported remains low, with an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported,” About fraud reporting rates, not the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “so the problem is understated and in the billions of dollars.” About the scale of fraud, not the motion before the House.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “We know that fraudsters generally target the most vulnerable people among us, such as seniors, new Canadians and young people.” About who fraudsters target, not the defence expenditure vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Bank fraud in particular is a significant concern in Canada,” About bank fraud, not the motion under debate.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “yet investigations by financial institutions often end with banks’ blaming the very customers who trusted them with protecting their money.” About banks’ fraud investigations, not the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “This raises the issue of the proper responsibility of banks to their depositors and the role of the federal government in regulating or not regulating them properly.” About bank regulation, not the defence capital expenditure vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““In early September, my dad, a 67 year old retiree called me in a panic.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He had just realized he had been scammed out of his entire life savings and more.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He was involved in what we believe was a ‘pig butchering’ scam.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He was told he was investing in cryptocurrency—he had a wallet which showed incredibly high returns.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “When he went to withdrawal, he was hit with yet another fee of $90,000 USD to do so.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “His ‘partner’ who was to be paying the fees to share in the investment suddenly said she didn’t have anymore money.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “This is when he realized.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““...Going through the details of the scam ended up showing that my dad didn’t purchase crypto in a typical way.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He was directed to the bank to wire money to several different locations.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Locally here in Vancouver, then to New York and then finally to Vietnam.” A constituent’s account of a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025 and thus the transactions begun.” A constituent’s account of bank transactions, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Every 10-14 days my dad went to the same branch on Mainland Street in Yaletown and sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam under the guise of ‘purchasing auto parts.’” A constituent’s account of bank transactions, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Every single time he wire transferred the money, the same branch manager signed off on it.” A constituent’s account of bank transactions, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “No questions asked.” A constituent’s account of bank transactions, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “By the end of August he had drained most of his RRSPs, remortgaged his home, took out personal loans,” A constituent’s account of losses from a scam, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point 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 borrowed from family and friends. l’m dumbfounded by the fact that the branch manager at this location never noticed the red flags:” A constituent’s account of bank conduct, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “a brand new customer, a senior retiree, purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts from a personal bank account.” A constituent’s account of bank conduct, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““I filed a complaint against BMO....” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They refuse to answer if my dad was ever reported to FINTRAC.” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They replied that he signed off on the wire transfers that stated if he was being coached into cryptocurrency he shouldn’t go through with it—none of the wire transfers use that type of language.” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Further, BMO states that they have a policy in place for prevention of fraud with seniors—obviously this policy wasn’t followed in this instance.” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “There has been zero accountability for what happened from BMO.” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “They have said they will not return or refund any of the money and that this was completely my dad’s own doing.” A constituent’s complaint against a bank, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026.” A constituent’s family account of a death, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Months of stress and uncertainty, embarrassment and emotional toll had taken place.” A constituent’s family account, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He had nothing.” A constituent’s family account, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Forced to sell his condo to pay off some of his debt but seemingly about to be homeless.” A constituent’s family account, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““Fraud is abundant.” A constituent’s remarks on fraud, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “We read about it all the time.” A constituent’s remarks on fraud, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “I simply don’t understand how the bank could see such large sums of money to be transferred with no regard.” A constituent’s remarks on bank conduct, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point 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 at this point, they simply do not care....” A constituent’s remarks on bank conduct, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → ““But I do want something good to come out of his death—more people need to hear stories like this for real change to happen....” A constituent’s call for change, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point 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 lack of responsibility by BMO has changed the course of my life.” A constituent’s remarks on a bank’s conduct, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “My dad will not get to watch [my or my sisters’] families grow up.” A constituent’s family remarks, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “He will never financially contribute towards us.” A constituent’s family remarks, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “We are now left with the bill of his death and bankrupting his estate. lt’s a devastating end.”” A constituent’s family remarks, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Example number two is Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior who was the victim of a devastating financial fraud that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of her retirement life savings.” A second fraud victim’s case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Fraudsters impersonated law enforcement and coerced her into selling her retirement investments in her registered retirement accounts and wiring the money abroad to them from local RBC and TD branches.” Details of a fraud case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “She lost some $400,000 in her life savings.” Details of a fraud case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “To add insult to injury, she now faces a significant tax liability from the CRA due to this, despite already having suffered a complete financial loss of much of her retirement savings.” Details of a tax consequence of a fraud case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Because she withdrew RSP savings,” Details of a tax consequence of a fraud case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “which were then stolen, she now has to pay taxes on these monies, even though they have been lost to her.” Details of a tax consequence of a fraud case, unrelated to the defence estimates.
Off point 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 NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no.” About NDP amendments to Bill C-15 on bank fraud, not the defence expenditure vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “1, aimed at strengthening protections for Canadians targeted by bank-related fraud.” About amendments on bank fraud protections, not the motion under debate.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them,” About the defeat of fraud amendments, not the defence estimates.
Off point 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 we see nothing addressing this in these estimates.” About the absence of fraud measures in the estimates, not the defence capital expenditure vote itself.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Our amendments would have required banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud,” About proposed bank reimbursement requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “unless they have been grossly negligent in relation to that fraud.” About proposed bank reimbursement requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Banks would have also been required to report anonymized consumer-targeted fraud data,” About proposed fraud data reporting, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “so we could get a better understanding of the scope of this problem.” About proposed fraud data reporting, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 Financial Consumer Agency of Canada would have been required to conduct regular unannounced audits of banks’ anti-fraud practices and policies, publish detailed fraud statistics and make its annual fraud report public,” About proposed FCAC audit requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “so that we could make sure that banks are actually following through on the policies they claim to have.” About proposed FCAC audit requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 amendments also sought to make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding.” About ombudsman decision powers, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “These measures were recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch,” About advocacy groups’ recommendations on fraud, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “which argued that without mandatory audits, transparency,” About advocacy groups’ recommendations on fraud, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 accountability mechanisms, existing anti-fraud rules would remain ineffective.” About advocacy groups’ recommendations on fraud, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam,” About United Kingdom fraud reimbursement rules, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “which is a scam wherein the scammer convinces the victim to make a payment, must be reimbursed,” About United Kingdom fraud reimbursement rules, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “unless there is gross negligence on their part.” About United Kingdom fraud reimbursement rules, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in cases of fraud involving a consumer’s bank account.” About Quebec consumer protection law, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place.” A quote about bank policy requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and,” A quote about bank policy requirements, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply....” A quote about FCAC compliance, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations...” A quote about FCAC audits, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money,” A quote about bank accountability, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud.” A quote about bank accountability, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses.” A quote about fraud prevention incentives, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this.” About the UK example of fraud policy, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before].” UK fraud claim statistics, not the defence vote.
Off point 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 advent of AI and growing technology, the prospects of fraud growing in this country are chilling.” About fraud growth through AI, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere.” About AI-enabled scams, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “This is the kind of technology that exists now,” About AI-enabled scams, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “yet we are operating on outdated legislation.” About outdated fraud legislation, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “Although the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget,” About a budget measure on financial crime, not the defence capital expenditure vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “which is a good step forward, it can and should do much more to help protect Canadians from fraud in this country.” About further fraud protection measures, not the defence vote.
Off point Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate. What the tags mean → “New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen.” About NDP work on fraud protection, not the defence vote.
Respect · 100
0 of 95 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
2 of 95 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.
Unearned certainty Something stated as certain with nothing to back it. What the tags mean → “I think we all know” The phrase substitutes assumed common agreement for any source on the trend in fraud.
Vague promise A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible. What the tags mean → “New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen” The commitment names no measure, date or success condition for what the party will do.
Claims · 17
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 “Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024” Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024. search
2 “Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion” Reported fraud losses to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre since 2021 have surpassed $2 billion. search
3 “an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported” Only an estimated 5% to 10% of frauds are reported to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. search
4 “My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025” A Vancouver Kingsway constituent’s father opened a new account at BMO in April 2025. search
5 “sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam” Every 10-14 days the man wire-transferred between $100,000 and $300,000 USD from his BMO branch to accounts in Vietnam. search
6 “purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts” The customer purchased nearly $2 million in what were recorded as auto-parts purchases from a personal bank account. search
7 “My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026” The constituent’s father died on January 5, 2026. search
8 “Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior” A 79-year-old constituent identified as Mrs. L was the victim of a financial fraud. search
9 “She lost some $400,000 in her life savings” Mrs. L lost some $400,000 of her life savings to fraud. search
10 “The NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15” The NDP moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1, aimed at strengthening protections against bank-related fraud. search
11 “Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them” Liberal and Conservative members voted together to defeat the NDP’s seven amendments to Bill C-15. search
12 “recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch” Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch recommended measures such as mandatory audits, transparency and accountability mechanisms for bank anti-fraud rules. search
13 “The United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam, ” The United Kingdom brought in new rules requiring reimbursement of consumers who are victims of APP scams unless there is gross negligence on their part. search
14 “the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions” Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in fraud cases involving a consumer’s bank account. search
15 “The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training” The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to protect the financial interests of their customers. search
16 “the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before]” According to the Payment Systems Regulator, fraud claims in the UK decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025 compared with the same period the year before. search
17 “the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget” The federal budget included the creation of a financial crimes agency. search