Analysis · Members' statement · beta

Jeff Kibble

Conservative on Canadian Armed Forces 2026-04-27

179 words · 11 sentences · 13 clauses

Statement grade

A–

Average 85 / 100

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

Claims 63%Positioning 27%Procedure 9%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 27 wordsthe Liberals have signalled their intent to remove collaborative amendments to Bill C‑11 dealing with military sexual assault, amendments that survivors asked for and experts supported overwhelmingly.¹² Positioning · 22 wordsThe Liberals are about to single-handedly undo decades of progress in military conduct. They would make things worse than we can imagine.Positioning Procedure · 10 wordsAt the heart of the debate is something very simple: ProcedureClaims · 28 wordsgiving survivors the choice between the civilian and the military justice systems. If the government removes these amendments, survivors would have access only to the civilian justice system.³ Procedure · 7 wordsThe consequences would be immediate and unavoidable.Procedure Claims · 58 wordsThere would be institutional trauma and revictimization among survivors who trusted us to listen. Going forward, a majority of military sexual assault cases would go unaddressed or untried. Civilian police forces would be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb, ⁴and worse, the majority of cases would not meet the threshold for prosecution by civilian authorities. Positioning · 27 wordsThe Liberals would be opening the door to predators, abandoning survivors of military sexual assault and deceiving Canadians into believing they care about victims. It is shameful.Positioning

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 56

6 of 6 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 “The Liberals are about to single-handedly undo decades of progress in military conduct.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “They would make things worse than we can imagine.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “At the heart of the debate is something very simple:”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “The consequences would be immediate and unavoidable.”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 “The Liberals would be opening the door to predators, abandoning survivors of military sexual assault and deceiving Canadians into believing they care about victims.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is shameful.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · no score

Not applicable: nothing to answer. Excluded from the average.

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 6 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 · 4

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 Liberals have signalled their intent to remove collaborative amendments to Bill C‑11 dealing with military sexual assault”The Liberals have signalled their intent to remove collaborative amendments to Bill C-11 dealing with military sexual assault.search
2“amendments that survivors asked for and experts supported overwhelmingly”Survivors asked for the Bill C-11 collaborative amendments and experts overwhelmingly supported them.search
3“survivors would have access only to the civilian justice system”If the amendments are removed, survivors of military sexual assault under Bill C-11 would have access only to the civilian justice system.search
4“Civilian police forces would be handed cases they have repeatedly said they cannot absorb”Civilian police forces have repeatedly said they cannot absorb the military sexual assault cases that would be transferred to them.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20