Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal on Business of Supply 2026-10-27

141 words · 7 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Jeremy Patzer (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberals just changed the math around a bit to make it work with their 2% commitment, such as making the Canadian Coast Guard fall under national defence so they could take credit for the money being spent on the Coast Guard. They did not actually, truly or properly reach that 2% by providing our military with the things that it needs. What I want to double down on here is that the Prime Minister became Justin Trudeau’s adviser in 2020. Again, tax revenue for the government was $284 billion. When the current Prime Minister was advising the former prime minister, it went all the way up to $417 billion. I know that number is going to continue climbing. At the same time, the government is blowing past a balanced budget. It is on a path to keep it going up to around $80 billion a year. At one point, it was projected to be sustained at $63 billion a year. The PBO said that. Canadians are still wondering what they got for this, other than more people at the food bank.”

Statement grade

C–

55 / 100, held down by Signal

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

Positioning 67%Reasoning 9%Claims 19%Procedure 4%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 48 wordsI think it is important to recognize that the member wants to talk about Justin Trudeau, Partly on pointand I would talk equally about Stephen Harper.Off point Both of those former prime ministers saw the merit of seeking the advice of our current leader of the Liberal Party, today’s Prime Minister.Positioning Reasoning · 13 wordsI see nothing wrong with seeking advice. I see that as a positive. Claims · 27 wordsI can assure the member opposite that there are many people who sought the advice of today’s leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada. Positioning · 13 wordsI suspect that it has a lot to do with his economic credentials.PositioningPartly on point Procedure · 6 wordsAt the end of the day, ProcedurePositioning · 34 wordsif we were to be judged on the last 18 months, whether on issues of affordability, the Canadian Forces, investments in Canada or major projects, I believe Canadians would see through the Conservative games.PositioningPartly on 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 · 25

6 of 14 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 “I think it is important to recognize that the member wants to talk about Justin Trudeau,”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 “and I would talk equally about Stephen Harper.”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 “Both of those former prime ministers saw the merit of seeking the advice of our current leader of the Liberal Party, today’s Prime Minister.”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 suspect that it has a lot to do with his economic credentials.”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 “At the end of the day,”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 “if we were to be judged on the last 18 months, whether on issues of affordability, the Canadian Forces, investments in Canada or major projects, I believe Canadians would see through the Conservative games.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 42

8 of 14 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 motion 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 “I think it is important to recognize that the member wants to talk about Justin Trudeau,”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 “and I would talk equally about Stephen Harper.”It is a side remark about Stephen Harper, not the spending record asked about.
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 “Both of those former prime ministers saw the merit of seeking the advice of our current leader of the Liberal Party, today’s 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 “I see nothing wrong with seeking advice.”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 see that as a positive.”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 can assure the member opposite that there are many people who sought the advice of today’s leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada.”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 suspect that it has a lot to do with his economic credentials.”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 “if we were to be judged on the last 18 months, whether on issues of affordability, the Canadian Forces, investments in Canada or major projects, I believe Canadians would see through the Conservative games.”It lists general areas of the government’s record and turns to attacking the Conservatives, without saying what Canadians got for the deficits asked about.

Respect · 100

0 of 14 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 · 100

0 of 14 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.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-29