Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly McCauley

Conservative on Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders 2026-04-27

116 words · 6 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I think we should be looking at the motion for what it is. It is very straightforward. For majority governments, there is parliamentary tradition, not only here in Canada but also outside it in the Commonwealth. If a majority of membership makes up the House of Commons, a majority of membership makes up our standing committees. There is a very good reason for it. There is no reason for us to go against a tradition that has actually been very effective for Canada as a nation for generations, and I would hope the Conservatives see the value of it. I am sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, they would probably see the value in it. Does the member not believe that we should be following parliamentary tradition?”

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.

The ask 16%Claims 50%Reasoning 34%

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

Mr. Speaker, The ask · 19 wordsI would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Claims · 12 wordsAgain, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament’s being called.³ Reasoning · 11 wordsThe very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. Claims · 46 wordsThe member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund.¹ He voted in favour of taxpayers’ money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists. Reasoning · 28 wordsIf the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: ²“what touches all should be approved by all”.

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 motion 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 · 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“voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund”Kevin Lamoureux voted in favour of Vote 40 (the 2018-19 Treasury Board central vote) as a member of Parliament.search
2“the one originally set by King Edward”The parliamentary tradition ‘what touches all should be approved by all’ originates with King Edward’s Model Parliament.search
3“the original Model Parliament’s being called”King Edward called the original Model Parliament in the 13th century.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20