Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Mel Arnold

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-05-07

112 words · 6 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Jeff Kibble (Conservative)

“Mr Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s excellent intervention. You mentioned secret agreements. Could you tell me the risks and explore some of the risks of secret agreements done behind closed doors and their effect on transparency, as opposed to a treaty process that is established through the courts and that is open and transparent?”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

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

Procedure 19%Reasoning 26%Claims 55%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 21 wordsthe member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements and asking whether I could expand on those risks.³Procedure Reasoning · 23 wordsWell, because those agreements are secret, we have not seen them. We do not know what the risks are in these secret agreements. Claims · 62 wordsI have been privy to this through my work, for over 10 years, on the fisheries committee, ¹where agreements are signed with organizations around the country, secret agreements. Due to the rules put in place by the Liberal government in the previous changes to the Fisheries Act, the information in those agreements cannot be made public.² It is hidden behind closed doors, Reasoning · 6 wordsso the risks are absolutely unknown.

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 · 76

1 of 1 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 for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements and asking whether I could expand on those risks.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 1 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 1 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 · 100

0 of 1 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.

Nothing lost points.

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“over 10 years, on the fisheries committee”Mel Arnold has served on the House of Commons fisheries committee for over 10 years.search
2“the rules put in place by the Liberal government in the previous changes to the Fisheries Act”Changes to the Fisheries Act made under the Liberal government contain rules that prevent information in agreements with organizations from being made public.search
3“the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements”During this debate, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford spoke about the risks of secret agreements and asked Mel Arnold to expand on them.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20