Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Sherry Romanado

Liberal on Military Justice System Modernization Act 2026-05-08

76 words · 3 sentences · 4 clauses

Replying to James Bezan (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday here, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean asked a question on Bill C-11 of the Minister of National Defence. It was a Liberal member asking the Liberal minister if the Liberals would include a sunset clause, which they had removed and which we had already agreed to at committee stage. The parliamentary secretary actually voted for that amendment, to go from a three-year to a four-year anniversary to bring in a review and a sunset clause. Then the Liberal minister, not listening to our committee, with the report we brought forward, and not listening to the survivors of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault, decided to ram it through and take that out. Now the Liberals are saying, according to the minister, that they would be open to the unelected Senate bringing forward that amendment. The parliamentary secretary sat on the committee, heard the witnesses say that they wanted a sunset clause, voted for a sunset clause, and then her very own minister gutted the bill and she voted for him to gut the bill of these amendments. Why?”

Statement grade

A+

Average 100 / 100

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

Claims 100%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 76 wordsactually, I agree with keeping the sunset clause in the bill, and I support the idea of having that put back in. I agreed in committee to put that in, including a four‑year sunset clause with a review of both houses of Parliament.¹ I agree that we hope the Senate, when it does the review of this bill and is going through that process, includes that recommendation and any other recommendations that will strengthen the bill.

At a glance

AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Relevance · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Respect · 100

Nothing lost points on 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.

Clarity · 100

Nothing lost points on Clarity.

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Claims · 1

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“I agreed in committee to put that in, including a four‑year sunset clause with a review of both houses of Parliament”During committee study of Bill C-11, Sherry Romanado agreed to an amendment adding a four-year sunset clause with a review by both houses of Parliament.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20