Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Chak Au

Conservative on Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22 2026-06-17

84 words · 2 sentences · 3 clauses

Replying to Sima Acan (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague at committee, as well as with my colleague from Oshawa, who also expressed concern about not having enough time to ask questions at committee. With respect, every member of the committee has the same time allocated. I have difficulty understanding why, while most of the other members of the committee could ask questions, the member was not able to. It is all about using our time wisely, I think. It is like someone’s complaining about the distance they cannot go, when they have waited at the station too long. That was my concern. I am trying to understand how they could not use the time wisely and why they filibustered their own witnesses.”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Reasoning 51%The question 49%

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

Madam Speaker, Reasoning · 43 wordswith a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals. The question · 41 wordsI want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2, and the government chose to shut down the discussion.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 46

3 of 3 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 “with a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals.”About the need for more time to study Bill C-22, not about how the member’s side used its time at committee.
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 want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2,”Puts a question back about debating clause-by-clause on part 2 rather than addressing the point about wasted committee time.
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 “and the government chose to shut down the discussion.”Accuses the government of shutting down discussion, staying on the bill’s subject without answering the point put.

Reasoning · 87

0 of 3 deductions are Reasoning

Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.

Nothing lost points.

Conclusions found · 1

Conclusion“I want to ask whether the member on the other side agrees that it is not democratic that we had not even had the chance to start debating clause-by-clause on part 2,”

Because“with a bill that is so complex and complicated, we need time to understand it thoroughly and assess each portion of the bill so that we can address the concerns being raised and the questions being asked by the public and by professionals.”

Reason given

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 · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20