Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders 2026-04-23

131 words · 10 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Fred Davies (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I was entertained by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader’s speech. Every time I have risen in the House before to speak to legislation, the parliamentary secretary has accused us of filibustering and not allowing legislation to go to committee quickly enough. Now that the Liberals want to assert their majority to get a majority on committees, will he undertake and commit today to stop the rhetoric about how we should stop debating legislation in the House? We have a right to stand here with our opinions. He seems to want to have co-operation until he does not. At the immigration committee, we passed substantial and reasonable amendments to legislation that were only overturned when it came back to report stage. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would commit today to being more collaborative in reality and not just in rhetoric.”

Statement grade

D+

51 / 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.

Positioning 21%Procedure 5%Claims 73%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 28 wordsI do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative. I want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy.Positioning Procedure · 7 wordsTwo examples come to mind right offhand.Procedure Claims · 96 wordsThe first is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation.¹ There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year. There was absolutely no reason.Unearned certainty The reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so. A second example is lawful access. I have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion, yet we have the lawful access bill before us.² There is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago.Off pointUnearned certainty

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 67

3 of 13 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative.”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 want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy.”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 “Two examples come to mind right offhand.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 21

8 of 13 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.

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 first is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation.”A list of bills blamed on the opposition is a political point in place of the commitment requested.
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 was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year.”Blames the opposition for a delay instead of answering the request for a commitment to collaboration.
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 was absolutely no reason.”Repeats the accusation against the opposition rather than addressing the question.
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 reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so.”Attributes the delay to the opposition’s conduct, not the speaker’s own collaborative commitment.
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 second example is lawful access.”A second accusatory example about the opposition in place of answering the question.
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 have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion,”Points at the opposition’s record on extortion rather than the commitment asked for.
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 have the lawful access bill before us.”Cites the lawful access bill as an item of grievance, not an answer to the question.
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 is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago.”Blames the opposition for delay on lawful access instead of addressing the commitment requested.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

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.

Clarity · 74

2 of 13 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 “There was absolutely no reason.”Asserts certainty in place of explaining or sourcing why the bill was not passed.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “There is absolutely no reason”States an absolute certainty about legislative timing without giving a source or measure.

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“Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation”Bill C-14 is bail reform legislation.search
2“we have the lawful access bill before us”A lawful access bill was before the House of Commons at the time of the debate in April 2026.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16