Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly Block

Conservative on Strong and Free Elections Act 2026-04-24

76 words · 3 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Tom Osborne (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, you have obviously done a great deal of review on the bill. I will give the member an opportunity to elaborate. You talked about penalty increases and some concern with the size of the increases. The size of the increase, I believe, is to prevent bad intention or bad actors. If candidates, official agents or others are acting in good faith, they have no fear of an increase in the size of the penalty. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on your thoughts.”

Statement grade

D+

53 / 100, held down by Clarity

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

Thanks 13%Reasoning 53%Claims 12%Promise 22%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 10 wordsI appreciate the explanation that my hon. colleague has provided, ThanksReasoning · 7 wordsand I would agree with that explanation. Claims · 9 wordsI do believe that the proposed increases are significant, Reasoning · 33 wordsand I think they demonstrate the seriousness with which both the committee and the drafters of the legislation take the monetary penalties that would be applied in cases where these fines are appropriate.Unearned certainty Promise · 17 wordsI will leave it to the committee to determine whether this is something that needs further scrutiny.Vague promise

At a glance

Lost points for
VagueMuch of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 84

1 of 3 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I appreciate the explanation that my hon. colleague has provided,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 3 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

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 · 23

2 of 3 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 “demonstrate the seriousness with which both the committee and the drafters of the legislation take the monetary penalties”The clause asserts what the increases demonstrate about others’ seriousness without offering any source.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “I will leave it to the committee to determine whether this is something that needs further scrutiny”It defers any follow-up to an unnamed future determination with no condition or date.

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 2026-09-16