Analysis · Debate question · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

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

123 words · 7 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really outdoing himself today by making the claim that giving government members all of the power on committees will somehow lead to more co-operation. The nature of a committee structure in which no single party holds a majority is that parties have to negotiate, work out their differences and figure out how to collaborate in order to get things moving forward. The new reality that the Liberals are trying to impose is one in which the government does not have to co-operate with anyone but can instead impose its will through an undemocratic majority, in fact an undemocratic supermajority, on committees that they were not given. In what world is it even plausible to argue that taking away the need to negotiate and putting all the power in the hands of one party is somehow going to lead to more collaboration?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Aside 16%The ask 17%Anecdote 18%Claims 42%Reasoning 7%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 20 wordsI think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee.AsideOff point The ask · 21 wordsIf the member genuinely believes that all standing committees are dysfunctional, I would invite him to attend different standing committee meetings. Anecdote · 22 wordsI have been in committees when there have been majorities, and it does change the optics; I will give him that much.Anecdote Claims · 52 wordsHowever, I will also suggest to the member that there is a higher sense of co-operation, which I have witnessed first-hand.Unearned certainty Giving a false impression does a disservice to the parliamentary process. Let us remember, we have had majority governments throughout the years here in Canada, and typically, they work relatively well. Reasoning · 8 wordsWhy would we not allow that to continue?

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 60

4 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “I think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I have been in committees when there have been majorities,”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “and it does change the optics;”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I will give him that much.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

1 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 speech it follows, 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 “I think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee.”A personal jab at how the member conducts himself in committee, not an answer to the question about committee power and collaboration.

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 · 92

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “which I have witnessed first-hand”The claim of a ‘higher sense of co-operation’ is supported only by personal assertion with no verifiable source or example.

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 2026-09-16