Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Jeff Kibble

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

86 words · 5 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I have a non-partisan question for the member. Single-sourcing is an issue that the member raises. Single-sourcing is done in all provinces. If we look at health, the greatest expenditure that a province has, whether it is B.C., Ontario or Alberta, we find that single-sourcing is a reality. Then if we take a look at Crown corporations, they ensure more accountability, more accessibility and a direct link to their respective legislatures, in this case, the House of Commons. Then we can take a look at the need to expedite and become more efficient at delivering for the members of our Canadian forces. Does the member not agree that a Crown corporation is, in fact, a good step forward in achieving all of those?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 86%Reasoning 14%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 29 wordsI indeed said that Crown corporations have proven successful in other countries, ⁴but these unaccountable regulations, which would allow one person to make these powerful decisions, are the problem. Reasoning · 4 wordsThat is the failure. Claims · 45 wordsConservatives have used single-source contracts to much success to arm our troops quickly when there was a need, ¹but there were written reasons.² The bill is focused around 13 expandable reasons that do not require accountability and do not require reporting back to the House.³ Reasoning · 8 wordsThat is the problem, not the Crown corporation.

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Claims · 4

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“Conservatives have used single-source contracts to much success to arm our troops quickly”Conservative governments have used single-source defence contracts to arm Canadian troops quickly.search
2“there were written reasons”Under previous Conservative single-source contracts, written reasons were required.search
3“13 expandable reasons that do not require accountability”Bill C-40 contains 13 expandable reasons that do not require accountability or reporting back to the House.search
4“I indeed said that Crown corporations have proven successful in other countries”In this debate the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said that Crown corporations have proven successful in other countries.search

Analysed on 2026-10-22