Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Criminal Code 2026-10-05

953 words · 48 sentences · 61 clauses

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.

Claims 56%Procedure 11%Reasoning 14%Positioning 8%The question 6%The ask 1%Anecdote 5%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 52 wordsright at the outset, let me make it very clear that, from my understanding, restitution payments exist in law and can be paid to victims.¹ After listening to the member opposite, I note that she seems to be very aware of that. What the member is proposing is a fairly significant change. Procedure · 13 wordsI want to paint a bigger picture of what has actually taken place.Procedure Claims · 25 wordsFirst and foremost, I think it is universally accepted within the chamber by all members of Parliament that hate has no place inside the country.Unearned certainty Reasoning · 52 wordsWe all play a very important role to do what we can to promote tolerance and education and, where we can, to call out things that ultimately lead to hatred and acts of violence or vandalism, which cause a great deal of harm in many different ways to the communities we represent. Claims · 67 wordsI think of churches, mosques, gurdwaras, temples and synagogues, all of which have been victims of hate crimes. The issue of hate-motivated mischief is something the government has actually dealt with in its legislative agenda. Coming out of the last federal election, we had a Prime Minister who made a commitment to come forward with a legislative agenda to deal with the issue of crime and safety.² Procedure · 14 wordsThat is the reason I posed the question I did to the member opposite.Procedure Claims · 19 wordsI sat on the government benches listening to Conservative after Conservative filibuster or speak in opposition to Bill C-9, ⁴Positioning · 43 wordsso it is not because of the Conservative Party that the Combatting Hate Act is now law in Canada.³ Quite the opposite, it is because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government of the day in forcing through the legislation.Positioning Claims · 44 wordsIt was substantial. It dealt with mischief and hatred, which are real, in several different ways. It was part of the overall crime, safety and community safety legislative agenda that the Prime Minister and the government have put forward over the last 18 months, ⁷Positioning · 7 wordsbecause we take the issue so seriously.Positioning Claims · 47 wordsWhen we think of the core of that legislation, it deals with putting up with, for example, protesters who try to hinder, prevent or intimidate people from being able to attend a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara or a mosque.⁶ That legislation is there. It is tangible. Positioning · 3 wordsWe provided it.Positioning Claims · 14 wordsIt is all part of the bigger picture of the agenda of the government. Procedure · 13 wordsI provided the member the opportunity to give some clarification on the legislation.Procedure The question · 9 wordsHas she changed her position in supporting Bill C-9? Claims · 12 wordsFrom what I recall, not only did the Conservatives vote against it, ⁵Positioning · 14 wordsbut they proactively promoted, I would suggest, a lot of hatred toward the legislation.Positioning Claims · 63 wordsListen to the debates or read the debates on it from just a year ago. If we look at what the member is proposing, restitution payments exist today and are a part of our judicial system, not precisely in the way the member is proposing within this piece of legislation, but there is duplication within the legislation being proposed by the member today. Reasoning · 20 wordsThat is because of the changes we brought in through Bill C-9 or because of the current criminal act, prior. Procedure · 58 wordsWhenever I think of judicial changes and reforms, I often think about the stakeholders and how they feel about the different issues. It is because of Bill C-9 that I posed a question specifically on that issue to the member, but if I was able to provide a follow-up question, it would be on dealing with the stakeholders.Procedure Claims · 10 wordsSome of the stakeholders are our provincial and territorial jurisdictions. The question · 19 wordsHas the Conservative Party consulted with or had any direct input from our provincial, territorial or even indigenous counterparts? Claims · 74 wordsThey all have a very strong vested interest in the area. If we were to canvass our constituents, the average Canadian, we would find that an overwhelming majority, over 90%, of people understand hate-motivated crimes, including the issue of mischief or vandalism.⁸ The vandalizing of places of worship, sadly, is not new, and it varies extensively. The member cited specific examples from outside the province of Alberta and went into a number of jurisdictions. Procedure · 4 wordsIt does not matter.Procedure Claims · 31 wordsIt happens in all regions of our nation and it varies. It varies from graffiti to burning things down, causing significant damage, all of which we are very much concerned about. Positioning · 8 wordsVandalism is something we all take very seriously, PositioningThe ask · 8 wordsand I would encourage us to do so. Anecdote · 47 wordsAt the end of the day, there is more we can do on the issue of vandalism that goes beyond our church facilities. I used to chair a youth justice committee, ⁹and through that, we had many different discussions about the issue of vandalism in our communities.Anecdote Reasoning · 47 wordsAt the end of the day, what we need in order to deal with a lot of the vandalism that takes place in our communities is to ensure that the offence itself is being better dealt with through enforcement.Partly on point Often, we have the legislation that is necessary. Claims · 34 wordsOur law enforcement agencies, municipalities and provinces, all of which participate in the process, have something to contribute. The amount of graffiti in our communities, for example, or vandalism that takes place is significant. Reasoning · 17 wordsI think that co-operation among the different stakeholders and different jurisdictions could have a more positive outcome.Partly on point Claims · 39 wordsYes, restitution does play a role. I know that when we had discussions in regard to vandalism when I was the chair of the justice committee, we recognized that restitution plays a role, ¹⁰and our courts recognize that today. The question · 26 wordsHaving said all that, I question and hope to hear more from the members of the Conservative Party about whether or not they are now onside—

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 72

16 of 24 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 want to paint a bigger picture of what has actually taken place.”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 “That is the reason I posed the question I did to the member opposite.”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 “so it is not because of the Conservative Party that the Combatting Hate Act is now law in Canada.”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 “Quite the opposite, it is because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government of the day in forcing through the legislation.”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 “because we take the issue so seriously.”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 “We provided it.”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 “I provided the member the opportunity to give some clarification on the legislation.”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 “but they proactively promoted, I would suggest, a lot of hatred toward the legislation.”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 “Whenever I think of judicial changes and reforms, I often think about the stakeholders and how they feel about the different issues.”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 “It is because of Bill C-9 that I posed a question specifically on that issue to the member,”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 “but if I was able to provide a follow-up question, it would be on dealing with the stakeholders.”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 “It does not matter.”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 “Vandalism is something we all take very seriously,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “At the end of the day, there is more we can do on the issue of vandalism that goes beyond our church facilities.”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 used to chair a youth justice committee,”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 through that, we had many different discussions about the issue of vandalism in our communities.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 94

7 of 24 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 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 “At the end of the day, there is more we can do on the issue of vandalism that goes beyond our church facilities.”About vandalism beyond religious properties, not the bill’s change to punishments for it.
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 “I used to chair a youth justice committee,”About the speaker’s past role on a youth justice committee, not the bill.
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 “and through that, we had many different discussions about the issue of vandalism in our communities.”About past discussions of vandalism generally, not mischief against religious property.
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 “At the end of the day, what we need in order to deal with a lot of the vandalism that takes place in our communities is to ensure that the offence itself is being better dealt with through enforcement.”About enforcement of vandalism in communities generally, not the bill’s penalty change.
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 “The amount of graffiti in our communities, for example,”About graffiti in communities generally, not religious property.
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 “or vandalism that takes place is significant.”About vandalism generally, not the bill’s target of religious property.
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 “I think that co-operation among the different stakeholders and different jurisdictions could have a more positive outcome.”About stakeholder co-operation on vandalism generally, not the bill’s proposal.

Respect · 100

0 of 24 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 · 96

1 of 24 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 “universally accepted within the chamber by all members of Parliament”Asserts a consensus of all members in place of any source for the claim.

Claims · 10

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“restitution payments exist in law and can be paid to victims”Restitution payments exist in Canadian law and can be paid to victims.search
2“we had a Prime Minister who made a commitment to come forward with a legislative agenda to deal with the issue of crime and safety”The Prime Minister made a commitment, coming out of the last federal election, to bring forward a legislative agenda to deal with crime and safety.search
3“the Combatting Hate Act is now law in Canada”The Combatting Hate Act is now law in Canada.search
4“Conservative after Conservative filibuster or speak in opposition to Bill C-9”Conservative members spoke in opposition to or filibustered Bill C-9 during its debate.search
5“From what I recall, not only did the Conservatives vote against it, ”The Conservative Party voted against Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act.search
6“it deals with putting up with, for example, protesters who try to hinder, prevent or intimidate people from being able to attend a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara or a mosque”Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act) deals with protesters who try to hinder, prevent or intimidate people from attending a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara or a mosque.search
7“the overall crime, safety and community safety legislative agenda that the Prime Minister and the government have put forward over the last 18 months”The government has put forward a crime and community safety legislative agenda over the 18 months preceding October 2026.search
8“an overwhelming majority, over 90%, of people understand hate-motivated crimes”Over 90% of Canadians understand hate-motivated crimes, including mischief or vandalism.search
9“I used to chair a youth justice committee”Kevin Lamoureux used to chair a youth justice committee.search
10“when I was the chair of the justice committee”Kevin Lamoureux was chair of the justice committee.search

Analysed on 2026-10-19