Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Kyle Seeback

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

215 words · 14 sentences · 15 clauses

Replying to Arnold Viersen (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share an experience that I had today at committee. The Liberals are actually filibustering a motion that we moved at the veterans affairs committee to bring some scrutiny to the spending that is being done in the veterans department. The Liberals are filibustering our motion there and they are taunting us with the fact that, very shortly, they will have a majority on the committee and will be able to shut down our motion at committee. I am just wondering if the member has any comments about that. We are seeing the Liberals taunting us. What does the member think is going to happen in the coming days?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Claims 67%Reasoning 17%Positioning 16%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 125 wordsit is absolutely true.Unearned certainty The Liberals are filibustering at the HUMA committee, like I described, to block the production of documents.¹ They are filibustering at the ethics committee to avoid accountability for the finance minister, who is in a conflict of interest.² I think we are going to see that increasingly.Partly on point One thing that I suspect will also start happening now is that the Liberals will bring motions to go in camera at committee. They are going to say, “Mr. Chair, we would like to move the meeting in camera.” For Canadians, this means that for whatever happens in that meeting, we cannot speak about it publicly. The Liberals will do that to avoid further accountability by holding the clause-by-clause review of legislation in camera, Reasoning · 9 wordsso they are not seen voting down opposition amendments. Positioning · 26 wordsI think that this is going to be an incredible stifling of democracy. It is deeply troubling how they are doing this at the accountability committees.Positioning Reasoning · 28 wordsIf they actually cared about accountability, they would do this at the justice committee or they would do things at the finance committee to get their legislation through. Claims · 19 wordsHowever, they are doing it at the accountability committees, the ones that hold them accountable, without a democratic mandate. Positioning · 8 wordsThese are dark days for democracy in Canada.PositioningPartly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 76

3 of 12 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 that this is going to be an incredible stifling of democracy.”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 “It is deeply troubling how they are doing this at the accountability committees.”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 “These are dark days for democracy in Canada.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 63

8 of 12 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 “it is absolutely true.”Affirms the point but the filibusters described are at other committees, not the veterans affairs committee raised.
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 “The Liberals are filibustering at the HUMA committee, like I described, to block the production of documents.”About a filibuster at the HUMA committee, not the veterans committee motion the point described.
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 “They are filibustering at the ethics committee to avoid accountability for the finance minister, who is in a conflict of interest.”About the ethics committee and the finance minister, not the veterans committee situation raised.
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 we are going to see that increasingly.”Predicts more filibustering generally, but addresses other committees rather than the veterans committee motion.
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 “It is deeply troubling how they are doing this at the accountability committees.”Commentary on the Liberals’ conduct at accountability committees generally, not the veterans committee point raised.
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 they actually cared about accountability, they would do this at the justice committee or they would do things at the finance committee to get their legislation through.”About what the Liberals would do at other committees, not the veterans committee motion described.
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 “However, they are doing it at the accountability committees, the ones that hold them accountable, without a democratic mandate.”About Liberal conduct at accountability committees generally, not the veterans committee situation raised.
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 “These are dark days for democracy in Canada.”A general statement about democracy, tied to the point’s theme but not the specific committee question asked.

Respect · 100

0 of 12 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 · 97

1 of 12 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 absolutely true”Asserts absolute certainty in place of any source or evidence for the claim.

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 Liberals are filibustering at the HUMA committee, like I described, to block the production of documents”Liberal members are filibustering at the HUMA committee to block the production of documents.search
2“They are filibustering at the ethics committee to avoid accountability for the finance minister”Liberal members are filibustering at the ethics committee in proceedings concerning the finance minister.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20