Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Chak Au

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

142 words · 9 sentences · 10 clauses

Replying to Ryan Turnbull (Liberal)

“Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the components of Bill C‑22 were in a previous bill that was debated in committee and studied, just as Bill C‑22 was, which was also studied for at least eight or nine hours in committee. As I have mentioned in the House today, I have not gotten one clear answer from any Conservative on why they chose to filibuster a spring economic update implementation act, Bill C‑30, which includes key economic measures, at a time when Canadians need the tax deductions and the support. Why would the Conservatives hold up progress on the economy to block a bill that would give police officers and law enforcement agencies the tools they have been asking for to crack down on organized crime? It does not make any sense to me. Maybe the member can enlighten me.”

Statement grade

B+

Average 83 / 100

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

Reasoning 68%Procedure 9%Claims 23%

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

Madam Chair, Reasoning · 76 wordsI have to point out that we cannot replace necessity with convenience. It may be convenient for the government to shut down debate in the name of urgency or in the name of saving time. As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work.No reason given It is necessary. It is not just for the sake of convenience that we shut it down. Procedure · 13 wordsI also want to point out that someone made a very interesting observation, ProcedureClaims · 32 wordswhich was that the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22.¹ That is rare. Reasoning · 21 wordsWith that kind of a situation, it is obvious that something is wrong.Logical leapUnearned certainty In this case, the Liberal government is wrong.

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 · 87

1 of 4 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 “I also want to point out that someone made a very interesting observation,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 4 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.

Reasoning · 43

2 of 4 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.

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.What the tags mean “As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work.”The only nearby support, the necessity-versus-convenience remark, restates the claim that thorough work is needed rather than giving a ground for it.
A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it.What the tags mean “With that kind of a situation, it is obvious that something is wrong.”The breadth of opposition across parties is offered as a ground, but the jump from ‘something is wrong’ to the government being to blame is asserted, not shown.

Conclusions found · 2

Conclusion“As I mentioned, with a bill that is so complex and sometimes difficult to understand thoroughly, we need the time to do thorough work.”

BecauseNo reason given

No reason givenThe only nearby support, the necessity-versus-convenience remark, restates the claim that thorough work is needed rather than giving a ground for it.
Conclusion“In this case, the Liberal government is wrong.”

Because“which was that the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22.”

Reason flawedThe breadth of opposition across parties is offered as a ground, but the jump from ‘something is wrong’ to the government being to blame is asserted, not shown.

Respect · 100

0 of 4 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 · 86

1 of 4 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 obvious that something is wrong”Asserts obviousness in place of any source or argument for the conclusion.

Claims · 1

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 Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, all parties that are very different on the political spectrum, are united in opposing Bill C‑22”The Conservative, Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties are united in opposing Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20