Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

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

136 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Scot Davidson (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently, and in justifying this motion, the government House leader called this principle “undeniable”. Does the Liberal government not understand that the entire purpose of parliamentary committees is to ensure that nothing is undeniable, that every action, every claim, every program and every policy is examined and accessed on its own merits? A government that declares itself “undeniable” has told the House exactly why it must not be trusted with committee control. This control is control that Canadians did not give in a general election.”

Statement grade

Average 61 / 100

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

Promise 39%Claims 46%Positioning 15%

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

Mr. Speaker, Promise · 26 wordsin the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration, ¹and we are going to see that collaboration.Vague promise Claims · 62 wordsSince the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election. I have had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage. Positioning · 21 wordsI am very aware of the games that take place. The member is not going to fool me on that issue.PositioningOff point Promise · 27 wordsWe have an opportunity, through the mandate that was given to us, to continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way—Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 79

2 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I am very aware of the games that take place.”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 “The member is not going to fool me on that issue.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 35

4 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Since the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election.”Shifts to the government’s legislative agenda and platform instead of addressing committee control and the election premise put to him
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 had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage.”Recounts blaming Conservatives over lawful access rather than answering the point about the committee composition motion
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 am very aware of the games that take place.”A political accusation about games that does not answer the point raised
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 member is not going to fool me on that issue.”A personal retort refusing the member’s point rather than addressing it

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 · 68

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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we are going to see that collaboration”A commitment with no actor, date, measure or success condition for what the collaboration involves.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way”A commitment with no specific action, measure or success condition, ending mid-thought with only abstract language.

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“in the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration”In the 2025 Canadian federal election, no party won a majority of seats in the House of Commons.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16