Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kelly McCauley

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

66 words · 4 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to Martin Champoux (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I find today’s debate rather odd. Just a few days ago, by-elections were held in three ridings, one in Quebec and two others in the Toronto area. The next day, the Prime Minister said that he would continue to work with the opposition because that is what Quebeckers and Canadians wanted. What is happening today is the exact opposite of that. We are concerned about increased arrogance and contempt for the parliamentary process and the workings of Parliament, which require an opposition that makes its voice heard and that, when necessary, works with a government that is willing to listen, take into account the concerns raised by the opposition and address them. Let us be clear: The 343 members of the House represent citizens who have a right to be heard. To follow up on what my colleague just said in answer to my previous question, I would like to know what he thinks of this approach. Is he also concerned about the approach we are beginning to see from this Liberal government?”

Statement grade

B+

84 / 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.

Claims 58%Positioning 42%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 38 wordsthe Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently.¹ It is clear that he is not.Unearned certainty His politics are like the empty, performative politics of every member of the past Trudeau government and the current government. Positioning · 28 wordsThey are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 54

1 of 2 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 “They are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 · 87

1 of 2 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 “It is clear that”The phrase asserts certainty in place of any backing rather than stating a checkable fact.

Claims · 1

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“the Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently”The Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20