Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Combatting Hate Act 2026-06-16

90 words · 4 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?”

Statement grade

77 / 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.

Procedure 20%Claims 50%Reasoning 11%Promise 19%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 18 wordsI have had the opportunity, as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue, ProcedureClaims · 45 wordswhich has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party. However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole. Reasoning · 10 wordsTherefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass. Promise · 17 wordsWe all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 76

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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “I have had the opportunity,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 47

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 point put to the member, and the bill 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 “which has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party.”On the bill’s controversy but blames one party’s misinformation instead of answering what the government will do differently.
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 “However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole.”Predicts Canadians will come to support the bill, without addressing how the government will explain its initiatives better.
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 “Therefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass.”A prediction of the bill’s passage, not an answer to the communication failure raised.
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 “We all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—”Begins to acknowledge concerns raised but is left incomplete and does not say what will be done differently.

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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20