Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Christine Normandin

Bloc Québécois on Report Stage 2026-05-04

146 words · 7 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the background of former chief justice Arbour and the work that she conducted. We are not talking hundreds but likely going to 1,000-plus consultations, both direct and indirect. She is an incredible woman who is recognized for human rights beyond Canadian borders and who ultimately came up with this recommendation. I suspect that in all the consultation with former and current CAF members, she came up with a recommendation that she truly believed was in the forces’ best interest. That is what the legislation would put into place. I am wondering if the Bloc would see that maybe we should be giving her more recognition for the work that she did.”

Statement grade

A–

Average 88 / 100

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

Claims 68%Reasoning 24%Procedure 2%Positioning 5%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 54 wordsas I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois’s proposal was in line with what Justice Arbour had recommended, while also taking into account the requests of several victims who appeared before the committee.³ However, the work done by Justice Arbour, who also appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66, dates back five years.¹² Reasoning · 35 wordsThe context may have changed since then. It would have been nice to hear from her again in committee, but she would not necessarily have had the opportunity to interview new members of the forces.Partly on point Procedure · 3 wordsIn any case, ProcedureClaims · 30 wordsas I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois’s proposal was in line with Justice Arbour’s recommendations, but it allowed for a choice in cases where it applied at the request of victims. Positioning · 8 wordsIt was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal.Positioning Claims · 16 wordsWhat is so absurd today is seeing the government undermine all the committee’s work on this.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 89

2 of 8 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 “In any case,”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 “It was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 64

6 of 8 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 bill 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 “However, the work done by Justice Arbour, who also appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66, dates back five years.”About the age of Justice Arbour’s work and Bill C-66, not about recognizing her contribution as asked.
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 “The context may have changed since then.”About whether the context may have changed since her report, not about recognizing her work.
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 would have been nice to hear from her again in committee,”About wishing she had appeared again in committee, not about recognizing her contribution.
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 “but she would not necessarily have had the opportunity to interview new members of the forces.”About her lack of opportunity to interview new members, not about the recognition asked for.
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 was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal.”Praise of the Bloc’s own proposal rather than recognition of Justice Arbour’s work as asked.
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 “What is so absurd today is seeing the government undermine all the committee’s work on this.”About the government undermining committee work, not about the recognition of Justice Arbour asked for.

Respect · 100

0 of 8 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 8 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“appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66”Justice Arbour appeared before a parliamentary committee regarding Bill C-66.search
2“dates back five years”Justice Arbour’s work on Bill C-66 dates back five years from May 2026.search
3“requests of several victims who appeared before the committee”Several victims appeared before the committee studying Bill C-11.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20