Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Andrew Scheer

Conservative on Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders 2026-04-23

101 words · 7 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Warren Steinley (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate about, basically, the Liberals taking a backdoor majority through floor crossing. I have been here for only six years, and I know that my colleague from Regina—Qu’Appelle has been here much longer. Has this happened before? Has the committee structure been altered like this by any governments in the past? Is this really precedent-setting? I believe this is the only case where a government has formed a majority through floor crossings. Once again, are the Liberals not abiding by the will of Canadians? Has this happened before in Parliament?”

Statement grade

C–

59 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Claims 77%Positioning 23%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 78 wordsI just want to point out that the member is right. This was done through backroom deals. Not a single one of those floor crossers would have won their own elections if they had run as Liberals. They got elected only because they were running under the Conservative banner and the Conservative leader. That is a fact.Off pointUnearned certainty No government has ever gone from a minority to a majority at the federal level through these kinds of backroom negotiations.¹ Positioning · 23 wordsWe believe that the makeup of Parliament and the checks and balances that Canadians voted for at the ballot box should be respected.PositioningOff point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 72

1 of 7 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 “We believe that the makeup of Parliament and the checks and balances that Canadians voted for at the ballot box should be respected.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 29

5 of 7 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “This was done through backroom deals.”Asserts backroom deals rather than answering whether this has happened before.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “Not a single one of those floor crossers would have won their own elections if they had run as Liberals.”Argues the floor crossers’ electoral legitimacy instead of the precedent question asked.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “They got elected only because they were running under the Conservative banner and the Conservative leader.”Continues the argument about how the members were elected, not the historical question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “That is a fact.”A bare assertion of fact about the election result, not an answer to what was asked.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We believe that the makeup of Parliament and the checks and balances that Canadians voted for at the ballot box should be respected.”Makes a point about respecting election results rather than addressing the precedent question or the motion’s terms.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

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 · 95

1 of 7 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 “That is a fact”The words assert certainty outright rather than citing any source the reader could check.

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“No government has ever gone from a minority to a majority at the federal level through these kinds of backroom negotiations.”No Canadian federal government has previously gone from a minority to a majority through floor crossings and negotiations between parties.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16