Analysis · Debate reply · beta

John Brassard

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

98 words · 6 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Patrick Bonin (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, after promising to co-operate and seek the views of opposition MPs in a fair manner, the first move by this now-majority government was to unilaterally change the rules of the game without consulting the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals are even going against parliamentary tradition, which dictates that the composition of committees should be determined by consensus. What we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. Worse still, the proposal would give Liberals 58% of the seats on parliamentary committees, whereas they hold 51% of the seats here in Parliament. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of that.”

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.

Procedure 7%Claims 34%Reasoning 51%Positioning 8%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 7 wordsI already mentioned that in my speech.ProcedureOff point Claims · 33 wordsFollowing the election last April, the parties took part in negotiations regarding the number of members on each committee, ¹but because some MPs have switched sides, we now find ourselves in this situation.² Reasoning · 31 wordsWe have to ensure we have accountability, oversight and transparency at our committees.Vague promise This would do nothing to ensure that. In fact, I suggest that it would make it much worse, Unearned certaintyPositioning · 8 wordsand the Liberals would run roughshod through everything.Positioning Reasoning · 19 wordsThey would pass whatever they want to pass, and committees would not have a say in any of it.

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 · 81

2 of 5 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 already mentioned that in my speech.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and the Liberals would run roughshod through everything.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

1 of 5 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 “I already mentioned that in my speech.”Dismisses the question by pointing back to earlier remarks instead of answering what was asked.

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 · 69

2 of 5 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We have to ensure we have accountability, oversight and transparency at our committees”States a needed outcome with no actor, measure or success condition for achieving it.
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “In fact”Uses a certainty formula in place of a source for the claim the change would make things worse.

Claims · 2

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“Following the election last April, the parties took part in negotiations regarding the number of members on each committee”After Canada’s federal election in April 2025, the parties in the House of Commons held negotiations about the number of members on each parliamentary committee.search
2“because some MPs have switched sides”Some members of Parliament switched parties following the April 2025 election.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16