Analysis · Members' statement · beta

Michael Cooper

Conservative on Prime Minister of Canada 2026-06-01

128 words · 8 sentences · 9 clauses

Statement grade

Average 90 / 100

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

Claims 53%Positioning 27%The ask 20%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 68 wordsLiberals on the ethics committee are blocking transparency around the Prime Minister’s ethics screen.¹ The screen was mandated by the Ethics Commissioner because of the Prime Minister’s vast conflicts.² Canadians deserve to know how the screen is working, including instances in which potential conflicts are flagged but the Prime Minister’s advisers decide against activating the screen. It is precisely those records that the Liberals are hiding from Canadians.³ Positioning · 34 wordsThe question is why. Is it because those records would show that the Prime Minister is involved in making decisions on matters in which he has a conflict of interest? Enough of the stonewalling.Positioning The ask · 26 wordsThe Prime Minister needs to come clean, and he needs to come clean today by releasing all records related to the application of his ethics screen.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 69

3 of 3 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 “The question is why.”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 “Is it because those records would show that the Prime Minister is involved in making decisions on matters in which he has a conflict of interest?”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 “Enough of the stonewalling.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · no score

Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 3 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“Liberals on the ethics committee are blocking transparency around the Prime Minister’s ethics screen”Liberal members on the House of Commons ethics committee have blocked efforts to obtain transparency around the Prime Minister’s ethics screen.search
2“The screen was mandated by the Ethics Commissioner”The Ethics Commissioner mandated the Prime Minister’s ethics screen.search
3“those records that the Liberals are hiding”Records about instances in which the Prime Minister’s advisers decide against activating the ethics screen have not been released.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20