Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-10-26

513 words · 22 sentences · 36 clauses

Replying to Michael Cooper (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed regarding the ethical cloud surrounding the Prime Minister in respect of decisions that his government has made to the benefit of Brookfield and, by extension, his personal financial portfolio. It is an undisputed fact that the Prime Minister has vast conflicts of interest with respect to Brookfield. Indeed, he has acknowledged more than 100 such conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding this, he has dismissed concerns about these conflicts on the basis that his assets are in a blind trust. The problem with that, of course, is that his blind trust is not truly blind because he knows exactly what went into it. Let us look at some of the facts. The Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from a Brookfield investment fund that he set up when he was the chair of Brookfield. Accordingly, he knows exactly what companies the fund has invested in because he hand-picked the companies. What exactly is blind about that? Then there are the Brookfield stock options for which the Prime Minister stands to make millions. What is blind about that? All of this to say that there is nothing blind about his so-called blind trust. Since the Prime Minister took office, time and again we have seen Brookfield at the front of the line, doing very well under the government. I will provide some examples. The government funnelled half a billion dollars to the European Space Agency. Why the European Space Agency? Could it be because Brookfield has a 50% ownership in the space agency’s headquarters? Could that be the reason or part of the reason? Then, there is the Pathways Alliance carbon capture scheme, involving billions of dollars of investment in carbon capture. The leading carbon capture company connected to Pathways Alliance is Entropy. Who owns Entropy? None other than the same Brookfield investment fund the Prime Minister’s future bonus pay is directly tied to. What a coincidence. Then there is the $50-billion maple fund that ties the retirement savings of millions of Canadians to Brookfield, and on it goes. Billions of dollars are flowing to Brookfield as a result of decisions made by the government. When Brookfield does well, the Prime Minister does well. That is verified by none other than the chief operating officer of Brookfield. What we have amounts to one big conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister. In the face of that, the ethics committee issued a report in the spring calling on the Prime Minister to end these conflicts of interest by divesting himself fully from Brookfield. Why has he not?”

Statement grade

D–

43 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Positioning 42%Anecdote 2%Claims 31%Aside 7%Reasoning 6%Promise 11%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 32 wordswhat the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done.PositioningPartly on point Anecdote · 12 wordsI remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons.¹Anecdote Claims · 34 wordsWhen Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him, and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did. Aside · 38 wordsIt is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here, and then they line it all up, Off pointand oh my God we have a conspiracy.Aside Reasoning · 6 wordsWe call that a tin-hat theory. Claims · 20 wordsThe Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England, ²Positioning · 14 wordsand he was an economist extraordinaire. He is very well respected around the world.Positioning Claims · 55 wordsThrough his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.⁵Partly on point What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption.⁷ That is what some of them tried to imply, Off pointPositioning · 31 wordsbut it is good public policy. The Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt.Partly on point They can do that all they want, PositioningPromise · 41 wordsbut at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, ³and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda.Vague promise Positioning · 78 wordsIf I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements, or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel. I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers: How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer?Positioning Reasoning · 5 wordsI do not do that. Positioning · 14 wordsI do not question their integrity. I do not question the ethics of that, PositioningOff pointReasoning · 6 wordsbecause we have an Ethics Commissioner.⁴Partly on point Positioning · 26 wordsI have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years, PositioningOff pointReasoning · 13 wordsbecause its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination.Partly on point Claims · 29 wordsI do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders, and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa. Positioning · 13 wordsSure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, ⁶PositioningOff pointClaims · 23 wordsbut I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas.Partly on point Promise · 14 wordsWe will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do.Vague promise Positioning · 9 wordsIt builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.PositioningOff point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
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 · 33

20 of 58 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 “what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
A story that illustrates instead of making a point.What the tags mean “I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons.”An anecdote: it illustrates, it does not claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “It is somewhat sad,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “and then they line it all up,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “and oh my God we have a conspiracy.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and he was an economist extraordinaire.”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 “He is very well respected around the world.”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 “but it is good public policy.”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 Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt.”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 “They can do that all they want,”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 “If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements,”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 “or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel.”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 “I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers:”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 “How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer?”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 “I do not question their integrity.”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 “I do not question the ethics of that,”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 “I have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years,”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 “Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively,”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 “It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 13

36 of 58 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 question on notice, as the member's speech raises 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 “what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done.”The clause attacks the nature of the opposition’s arguments rather than answering the ethical question.
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 remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons.”The clause provides an unrelated personal anecdote.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “When Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him,”The clause provides historical context about past partisan attacks without engaging with the current topic.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did.”The clause provides historical context about past partisan attacks without engaging with the current topic.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It is somewhat sad,”The clause is an expression of sentiment.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here,”The clause is rhetorical filler.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and then they line it all up,”The clause is rhetorical filler.
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 oh my God we have a conspiracy.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from 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 “We call that a tin-hat theory.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from 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 “The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England,”The clause notes the Prime Minister’s financial background, which is related to the opposition’s financial scrutiny.
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 he was an economist extraordinaire.”The clause provides context on the Prime Minister’s professional reputation.
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 “He is very well respected around the world.”The clause provides context on the Prime Minister’s professional reputation.
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 “Through his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.”The clause asserts the government’s success in economic policy generally.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption.”The clause references a different policy area and another set of opposition allegations.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is what some of them tried to imply,”The clause is a short rhetorical statement.
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 “but it is good public policy.”The clause defends a different area of government policy.
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 Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “They can do that all they want,”The clause is a short rhetorical statement.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago,”The clause serves as a transitional statement.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda.”The clause commits to a general direction of government focus.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements,”The clause launches a new, generalized analogy about the opposition’s motives.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel.”The clause is part of a generalized analogy regarding other opposing motives.
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 could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers:”The clause continues the generalized analogy regarding other opposing motives.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer?”The clause is a rhetorical challenge regarding the opposition’s integrity.
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 do not do that.”The clause is a commitment to principle.
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 do not question their integrity.”The clause is a commitment to principle.
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 do not question the ethics of that,”The clause is a commitment to principle.
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 “because we have an Ethics Commissioner.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years,”The clause compares trust in an institution with the opposition’s conduct generally.
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 “because its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.
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 do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders,”The clause states that no one outside of the House has raised corruption claims in Ottawa.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa.”The clause states that no one outside of the House has raised corruption claims in Ottawa.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively,”The clause acknowledges that collaboration can always be improved.
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 “but I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas.”The clause asserts that the government is working collaboratively with other levels of government.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do.”The clause is a commitment to continue working collaboratively.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.”The clause expresses a concluding optimistic sentiment.

Respect · 100

0 of 58 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 · 86

2 of 58 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 “are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda.”The phrase outlines a broad commitment without naming specific actions or success metrics.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “continue to do so”The commitment refers to general collaborative efforts without defining the scope or goals of those efforts.

Claims · 7

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“I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons.”Kevin Lamoureux has stated that he remembers sitting in the third party in the House of Commons.search
2“The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England,”The Prime Minister served as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England.search
3“our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago,”Kevin Lamoureux states that the Prime Minister was elected just over a year prior to the date of the statement.search
4“we have an Ethics Commissioner.”The government has an Ethics Commissioner.search
5“the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.”The government has made numerous decisions aimed at building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.search
6“Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, ”The government has been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas.search
7“Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption.”Conservative members stated that the Crown corporation on military procurement is corrupt during a past parliamentary debate.search

Analysed on 2026-10-28