Analysis · Debate reply · beta

James Bezan

Conservative on Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 2026-10-20

309 words · 18 sentences · 25 clauses

Replying to Stephen Fuhr (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, as my colleague was building an alternate universe, I ran out of paper, so let me just try to respond. It was very high level. For years, the Conservatives have crowed about supporting the military and spending and all this stuff. They did buy a few things, there is no question about it. There is the list of things the member pointed out, and I think there was even a compliment in there somewhere for me, so I thank him for that. I appreciate it. At the end of the day, they spent less than 1% on defence spending. If we add up everything he said, when it got the keys to the car, the government was spending 1.13%. When it was done, it was under 1%. If we add all the pluses and minuses, we end up with a pretty big deficit. I had mentioned in my comments earlier that the previous Liberal government doubled defence spending and got it from under 1% to about 1.43%, but we did not get to 2%. Part of the reason we did not get to 2%, although we doubled the defence spending, is that we did not have a process that could dispatch the funds and a machine that could do it in a way it needs to be done, hence we are standing here talking about a new way of doing business that will meet the moment. I will say that we did get to 2% in about eight months from 1.5%. I know my critic over there is shaking his head because he found some conspiracy theory place that disagrees, but does he know who audits those numbers and actually says whether we make the number or we do not? It is NATO. NATO has decreed that Canada has met the bar. Everybody else can have an opinion, but the one that matters is NATO. It has confirmed that Canada did indeed meet the target. Can I have another minute? He had about 10 minutes. I am just getting warmed up.”

Statement grade

B–

Average 70 / 100

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

Procedure 8%Positioning 39%Claims 52%

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

Madam Speaker, Procedure · 13 wordshe took two minutes, so I hope I get two minutes to reply.Procedure Positioning · 16 wordsFirst of all, let us talk about how the Liberals got to 2% through creative accounting.Positioning Claims · 103 wordsThey changed the formula in 2017 when they started adding other departmental spending into national defence.¹ Today we have the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been entirely absorbed by the Canadian Armed Forces budget, not operations. It is not a security organization. It does not have any lethality. They told us at committee, when we had the Coast Guard before them, that if there is any conflict breakout, the Coast Guard’s job is to leave the scene of the assault.² It would not be in the fight. It does fisheries monitoring, navigation and ice-breaking operations to ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway stays open. Positioning · 17 wordsThis is what it actually does and it does a great job. We love the Coast Guard.Positioning Procedure · 8 wordsIf we want to compare apples to apples, ProcedurePositioning · 19 wordsas we did when we were government, compared to the numbers these guys like to throw around at us, PositioningClaims · 59 wordswhere we just look at actual national defence spending based upon the public accounts that are filed right here in the House of Commons, in 2023-24, under the last year of Justin Trudeau, who the Secretary of State loves so much, their actual spending in that year, not using creative accounting, Mockerybut actually comparing apples to apples, was 1.05%.³ Procedure · 3 wordsHon. Kevin Lamoureux: ProcedurePositioning · 4 wordsThat is not true.Positioning Procedure · 2 wordsJames Bezan: ProcedurePositioning · 65 wordsMadam Speaker, that is true. All the member for Winnipeg North has to do is look at the numbers. This is more important than anything.Partly on point At the end of the day, this comes down to political leadership, making sure we get the job done.Vague promise As Conservatives, we will always fight for those who fight for us to keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.PositioningPartly on pointVague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
Personal attackThis statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “who the Secretary of State loves so much”.
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 41

15 of 20 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 “he took two minutes,”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 “so I hope I get two minutes to reply.”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 “First of all, let us talk about how the Liberals got to 2% through creative accounting.”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 “This is what it actually does and it does a great job.”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 love the Coast Guard.”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 “If we want to compare apples to apples,”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 “as we did when we were government, compared to the numbers these guys like to throw around at us,”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 “Hon. Kevin Lamoureux:”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 “That is not true.”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 “James Bezan:”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 “Madam Speaker, that is true.”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 “All the member for Winnipeg North has to do is look at the numbers.”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 “This is more important than anything.”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 “At the end of the day, this comes down to political leadership, making sure we get the job done.”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 “As Conservatives, we will always fight for those who fight for us to keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 91

2 of 20 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 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 “This is more important than anything.”A general remark about the matter’s importance that adds nothing to the spending dispute.
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 “As Conservatives, we will always fight for those who fight for us to keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.”A general pledge of support for the armed forces, not engaging the spending claims in dispute.

Respect · 72

1 of 20 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.

Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.What the tags mean “who the Secretary of State loves so much”This sarcastic remark ridicules the perception of the named politician’s standing.

Clarity · 77

2 of 20 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 “making sure we get the job done”Commits to an outcome with no actor, measure, date or success condition named.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we will always fight for those who fight for us”An open-ended commitment with no specific action, date or measure attached.

Claims · 3

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“They changed the formula in 2017 when they started adding other departmental spending into national defence”The Liberal government changed the defence spending calculation formula in 2017 to include other departmental spending in national defence.search
2“if there is any conflict breakout, the Coast Guard’s job is to leave the scene of the assault”Canadian Coast Guard officials testified at committee that in a conflict they would leave the scene of an assault.search
3“was 1.05%”Canada’s actual national defence spending in fiscal year 2023-24 was 1.05% of GDP, based on the public accounts, excluding other departmental spending.search

Analysed on 2026-10-22