Analysis · Debate reply · beta

David McGuinty

Liberal on Military Justice System Modernization Act 2026-05-04

80 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, the government is transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian courts. They are being taken out of the military system. The problem is that the government is already incapable of making the justice system work, especially when it comes to appointing judges. Quebec is short five judges and Canada is short 27. Victims do not need a change in system. They need justice. For that to happen, the federal government must do its job: It must appoint judges. Does the government intend to appoint judges as quickly as possible and give the system the resources it needs, instead of just passing the buck?”

Statement grade

77 / 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.

Thanks 8%Claims 74%Reasoning 19%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 6 wordsthe member raises an important question.Thanks Claims · 38 wordsWe recognize that the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system is a complex process. That is exactly why we are signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces.¹ Reasoning · 15 wordsIt is to make sure they have the means to deal with those additional cases. Claims · 21 wordsWe have already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario, ²and work is ongoing with other provinces.³Partly 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 · 91

1 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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “the member raises an important question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 47

5 of 6 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 “We recognize that the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system is a complex process.”It stays on the subject of the transferred cases but does not answer whether judges will be appointed or resources provided.
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 “That is exactly why we are signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces.”It names memoranda of understanding as the government’s approach, not the judicial appointments and resources asked about.
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 “It is to make sure they have the means to deal with those additional cases.”It speaks to the provinces’ capacity for the new cases, not the judge shortage raised.
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 “We have already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario,”It reports an agreement with Ontario, not an answer on appointing judges or resourcing the system.
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 work is ongoing with other provinces.”It describes ongoing work with provinces, not the judicial appointments or resources asked about.

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 · 3

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“we are signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces.”The government is signing memoranda of understanding with the provinces regarding the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases.search
2“We have already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario,”The government has already signed a successful memorandum of understanding with the Province of Ontario.search
3“work is ongoing with other provinces.”The government is currently working with other provinces regarding the transfer of Criminal Code sexual offence cases.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20