Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Arielle Kayabaga

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-06-10

80 words · 5 sentences · 5 clauses

Replying to Michael Cooper (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes. Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 55%Reasoning 45%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 44 wordsmy hon. colleague sits on the committee with me.¹ We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections.² The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts.³ Reasoning · 36 wordsWe believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.

At a glance

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

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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 bill under debate.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

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“my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me”Michael Cooper sits with Arielle Kayabaga on the same parliamentary committee.search
2“the 10% in the bill”Bill C-25 contains a 10% provision relating to third-party funding.search
3“recommended by experts”The reporting measures in Bill C-25 have been recommended by experts.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20