Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois on Military Justice System Modernization Act 2026-05-08

157 words · 10 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Alex Ruff (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the amendment that was tabled by my colleague, and even the comments that just came from the member for Winnipeg North, because I agree with my Bloc colleague that this is about choice for the victims. The member for Winnipeg North keeps bringing up this issue of what Justice Arbour recommended. A lot has changed, and I gave a full speech on this earlier this week at the report stage, highlighting that we have actually gotten this right. The system now provides that the military police try to transfer any of these Criminal Code sex offences to the civilian courts or to the civilian jurisdiction. However, police in these jurisdictions are coming back saying they cannot do it. Their threshold is too high, they do not have the resources, and now, basically, justice is not getting served. With the choice that has existed now over the last five years, we are giving victims the opportunity to make sure justice is served and for the military to take administrative action even when criminal court proceedings go through on the civilian side. What does the member think about those comments?”

Statement grade

B+

Average 84 / 100

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

Claims 38%Reasoning 36%Procedure 4%Positioning 13%The question 10%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 8 wordsmy colleague and I certainly agree on that. Reasoning · 18 wordsThe problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. Claims · 6 wordsWhat is more, there was consensus, Partly on pointProcedure · 6 wordsand that is the sad part.Procedure Claims · 19 wordsAll of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. Positioning · 11 wordsI do not know what principles it used to do that.Positioning The question · 15 wordsIf someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.Partly on point Reasoning · 28 wordsAs for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. Claims · 26 wordsWe did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. Positioning · 10 wordsI hope that this power trip will be over soon, PositioningPartly on pointReasoning · 10 wordsbecause otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 77

3 of 11 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 “and that is the sad part.”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 “I do not know what principles it used to do that.”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 “I hope that this power trip will be over soon,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 57

8 of 11 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 “What is more, there was consensus,”About a past consensus rather than the views on victims’ choice the question 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 “All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done.”About the government’s use of its majority, not the question on victims’ choice or case transfers.
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 “I do not know what principles it used to do that.”Asks about the government’s principles, not the substance the question 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 “If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it.”A call for explanation from the other side, not a view on the comments put to him.
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 did not get an explanation.”Notes no explanation was given, without addressing the question’s points.
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 government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen.”About the government’s majority control, not the question on victims’ choice.
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 “I hope that this power trip will be over soon,”A hope about the government’s tenure, not the substance asked about.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.”About the length of the coming parliamentary years, not the bill or the question.

Respect · 100

0 of 11 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 11 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 · 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