Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois on Report Stage 2026-05-04

93 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is doing some excellent work on these issues at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and who is studying a number of topics related to the ones I am studying at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Naturally, we often have overlapping areas of focus, and this is one of them. In committee, many victims came to plead in favour of freedom of choice. It is important to note that one of the major proposals in this bill is that all cases, without exception, be transferred from military courts to civilian courts. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed a compromise that was adopted, but that amendment is now threatened by what the government is trying to do. We were not even asking for complete freedom of choice, but we were saying that in some cases, if the civilian court felt that it would be better to leave a case with the military court, it could stay there. That does not seem like the end of the world to me. What does my colleague think about that?”

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.

Thanks 6%The question 10%Claims 66%Promise 18%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 6 wordsI also appreciate my colleague’s work.Thanks The question · 9 wordsWhy is this not done on a case-by-case basis? Claims · 61 wordsProposals are heard, a preliminary study is done, there is an assessment, and then a decision is made based on need and on what is proposed. When we all agree and then they say that it is wrong, that we should forget about it, that is like telling the minister that he will have the right to do whatever he wants. Promise · 17 wordsSeriously, we are going to have to change that, Vague promiseand we are going to do it together.Vague promise

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 · 92

1 of 3 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 “I also appreciate my colleague’s work.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 3 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.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 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 · 76

2 of 3 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 are going to have to change that”A commitment to change something with no measure, date or success condition named.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “we are going to do it together”The commitment names no actor beyond ‘we’, no action, date or measure.

Claims · 0

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

No checkable claims.

Analysed on 2026-10-20