Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Arpan Khanna

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

120 words · 11 sentences · 14 clauses

Replying to Steven Bonk (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, by every objective measure, the Liberal government has had more ethics violations and has been accused of more corruption than any government in Canadian history. My hon. colleague gave an excellent speech outlining some of the concerns he has in regard to what the government will do when it is given more power. Could he expand on that a little further and help Canadians understand the fear they should have when the government tries to take more power?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 95 / 100

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

Reasoning 20%Claims 50%Procedure 5%The ask 17%Promise 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Reasoning · 8 wordsabsolute power comes with absolute responsibility as well. Claims · 8 wordsWe have seen a pattern in the past. Procedure · 6 wordsThe member talked about ethics violations.Procedure Claims · 52 wordsThe government has been found guilty of 10 ethics violations.¹ Guess what. The punishment was 200 bucks.² If it was not for the work at our committees, and if it was not for the work of the opposition, the Liberals would try to hide from those scandals, and Canadians would never know. The ask · 20 wordsIf they are not afraid of the work they are doing, let the committees stand. Let Canadians see the truth. Reasoning · 16 wordsWhen we shine a light on the government, we make better government. That is our job, Promise · 10 wordsand we are not going to stop fighting for that.Vague promise

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 · 93

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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “The member talked about ethics violations.”Procedure or throat-clearing: 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 · 88

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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we are not going to stop fighting for that”A commitment by the speaker with no measure, date or success condition named.

Claims · 2

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 government has been found guilty of 10 ethics violations.”The government has been found guilty of 10 ethics violations.search
2“200 bucks.”The punishment for the government’s ethics violations was $200.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20