Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22 2026-06-17

142 words · 12 sentences · 17 clauses

Replying to Rhonda Kirkland (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member for Winnipeg North’s speech. He talked about collaboration and said that the Liberals want to collaborate. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. Any time we tried to collaborate, the answer was always no. Unfortunately that left us little availability to do other things. The Liberals also said that they want to use the tools. I would suggest they abuse the tools. The member also called the legislation “sound public policy”, so I will say this: If Bill C-22 is good, sound public policy, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny, it should be able to withstand amendments, and it should be able to withstand debate. Frankly, the motion, in my view, is an admission by the Liberal government that it has failed. The bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate, and the member should agree with that, because it is definitely not able to withstand scrutiny.”

Statement grade

Average 90 / 100

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

Procedure 11%Claims 68%Positioning 20%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 4 wordslet us imagine this.Procedure Claims · 87 wordsThe Government of Canada, through its ministries, worked collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies, ¹and it built a consensus, which is very easy to do, on lawful access. The bill came to the floor of the House of Commons in September year. It was brought to the Conservatives, and they said, “No way. We are not going to support this. We do not like lawful access. We are going to debate this thing endlessly. We are not going to allow it to pass.” Positioning · 20 wordsWell, it is kind of hard to collaborate, with that kind of an attitude, on the issue of lawful access.Positioning Procedure · 6 wordsIt has been made very clear: ProcedureUnearned certaintyClaims · 10 wordsThe Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access.² Positioning · 9 wordsWe want lawful access, but the Conservatives do not.Positioning Procedure · 6 wordsIt is as simple as that.ProcedureUnearned certainty

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 61

6 of 8 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 “let us imagine this.”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 “Well, it is kind of hard to collaborate, with that kind of an attitude, on the issue of lawful access.”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 “It has been made very clear:”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 “We want lawful access,”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 “but the Conservatives do not.”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 “It is as simple as that.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 8 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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

2 of 8 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “It has been made very clear”Asserts clarity without naming who made it clear or any source.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “It is as simple as that”A formula asserting certainty in place of any evidence or source.

Claims · 2

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“The Government of Canada, through its ministries, worked collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies,”The Government of Canada used its ministries to work collaboratively with provincial jurisdictions, municipal jurisdictions, and law enforcement agencies on lawful access.search
2“The Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access.”The Conservative Party of Canada does not support lawful access.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20