Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Adjournment Proceedings 2026-10-26

110 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Michael Cooper (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, let me spell it out for the parliamentary secretary. The Prime Minister has significant financial interests in Brookfield. He elected not to divest himself of those interests. Consequently, he does well when Brookfield does well, and Brookfield has done very well under his government, to the tune of billions of dollars. Which of those facts does the parliamentary secretary dispute? In addition to the so-called blind trust, which is not a blind trust, the Prime Minister set up an ethics screen, which he has repeatedly defied, including by meeting with Brookfield on multiple occasions in direct contravention of the screen the Ethics Commissioner set up. Also, he refuses to disclose times when conflicts were identified but he made a decision anyway. Why is the Prime Minister hiding those potential conflicts?”

Statement grade

75 / 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.

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 110 wordsas members know, the system we operate under today, in terms of blind trust and what the expectations are for prime ministers, is something that was in place long ago.Unearned certainty In fact, I believe it was Stephen Harper who put it in place.¹ The same rules have applied to Stephen Harper, to Justin Trudeau and to our current Prime Minister.² Our current Prime Minister has gone out of his way in working with the independent officers of the House of Commons, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that there is integrity in the system, including blind trust.³ I think it would have been the same for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.Partly on point

At a glance

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

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 45

5 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 point put to the member, and the question on notice.

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 members know, the system we operate under today, in terms of blind trust and what the expectations are for prime ministers, is something that was in place long ago.”It discusses the existence of the existing blind trust system but does not dispute the specifics of the allegations.
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 “In fact, I believe it was Stephen Harper who put it in place.”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 same rules have applied to Stephen Harper, to Justin Trudeau and to our current Prime Minister.”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 “Our current Prime Minister has gone out of his way in working with the independent officers of the House of Commons, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that there is integrity in the system, including blind trust.”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 “I think it would have been the same for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”On the subject of the question, but no answer to what was asked can be drawn from it.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 · 67

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 “as members know”The speaker asserts a collective awareness of the existing system without providing any verifiable external source.

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“it was Stephen Harper who put it in place”Stephen Harper put in place the current system governing blind trusts and expectations for prime ministers.search
2“The same rules have applied to Stephen Harper, to Justin Trudeau and to our current Prime Minister”The same blind trust rules have applied to Prime Ministers Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister.search
3“Our current Prime Minister has gone out of his way in working with the independent officers of the House of Commons”The current Prime Minister has worked with the independent officers of the House of Commons, including regarding his blind trust.search

Analysed on 2026-10-28