Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Melissa Lantsman

Conservative on Report Stage 2026-05-04

430 words · 19 sentences · 25 clauses

Statement grade

Average 92 / 100

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

Procedure 2%Claims 54%Reasoning 3%Positioning 27%The ask 13%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 10 wordsI am going to continue from where I left off.Procedure Claims · 113 wordsThe bill in question now addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services, positions that the court justices specifically identified as needing independence from the chain of command.¹ We also added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence.² We strengthened the independence of legal actors so that prosecutions are fair and impartial. We improved supports for victims, including the ability to request a victim liaison officer when trust breaks down because, in these cases, that is very much the currency.³ We addressed the fairness for the accused ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case.⁴ Reasoning · 8 wordsI think that is the most important change. Claims · 100 wordsWe included the clause for future review because these changes must be monitored, they must be measured and they must be revisited when it is necessary or when they do not work.⁵ Taken together, these amendments represent a serious effort to fix what is broken and to build a system that is more responsive, more accountable and certainly more just. However, these amendments have to be approved by this House and it seems that they are not even going to be considered. We did all of that work in committee for them to not even be considered by the government. Positioning · 79 wordsThat is not really how it is supposed to work. Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary, ⁶but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments, and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today. In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors, and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make.Positioning The ask · 6 wordsWe certainly hope they will reconsider, Positioning · 38 wordsbecause without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve. It would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this, and it is a very different thing.Positioning Claims · 20 wordsThe men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not work a nine to five. They serve without limit, Reasoning · 7 wordsand we owe them this in return. The ask · 49 wordsI urge every member of this House, including the members who now sit in the opposite benches who worked on this piece of legislation in committee, to reconsider, to stand with survivors and to support the brave men and women in uniform today and every day in this country.

At a glance

Lost points for
Echo ×5“The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.” Said 5 times by 4 members.Every time it was said

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 68

10 of 10 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 am going to continue from where I left off.”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 “That is not really how it is supposed to work.”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 “Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary,”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 “but the Liberals have the power to strip these amendments,”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 “and that is really what is at the crux of this conversation today.”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 “In doing so, they would weaken the accountability of this bill, they would ignore the voices of survivors,”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 “and they would remove the very improvements that the victims themselves asked this Parliament to make.”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 “because without these changes, it is not about making life better for those who serve.”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 would be about making life better for the politicians and the bureaucrats who oversee this,”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 “and it is a very different thing.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 10 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 bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 10 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 10 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.

Echo · 1 repeated line

Words members of Parliament keep repeating, found by the same rule for every member. No score depends on it.

“The director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.”Said 5 times by 4 members.Every time it was said

Claims · 6

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“addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services”Bill C-11 addresses the appointment process for the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services.search
2“consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence”Committee amendments to Bill C-11 added consequences for unreasonable delays in transferring evidence.search
3“the ability to request a victim liaison officer”Bill C-11 gives victims the ability to request a victim liaison officer.search
4“ensuring access to defence counsel, regardless of which system hears the case”Bill C-11 ensures accused members access to defence counsel regardless of which system hears the case.search
5“the clause for future review”Bill C-11 as amended includes a clause providing for future review of the changes.search
6“Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that these changes are all necessary”Conservative, NDP and Bloc members agree that the committee amendments to Bill C-11 are all necessary.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20