Analysis · Question Period answer · beta

Evan Solomon

Liberal on Public Safety 2026-06-02

83 words · 5 sentences · 7 clauses

Replying to Melissa Lantsman (Conservative)

“Mr. Speaker, that minister should ask anyone in Canada, or even the hundred Liberal donors who were in that room last night, if they feel safer today. The answer is no, because what we heard yesterday was hollow. It was reviewing previous reviews and studying studies on a crisis that the government presided over, funded and fuelled. That is not a plan. Nothing he said will stop the bullets from entering the member’s own synagogue or the genocidal slogans that are uttered in the streets every single day against Canadians. Will the Prime Minister finally stand up in the House and meet the moment he so spectacularly failed—”

Statement grade

A+

Average 97 / 100

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

Claims 59%Positioning 6%The ask 35%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 24 wordslike all Canadians, I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister yesterday as he named the dangerous scourge of anti-Semitism. He took action, Positioning · 5 wordsand not with divisive rhetoric.Positioning Claims · 25 wordsWe have an anti-hate bill that will protect our places of worship, campuses and community centres.¹ We have put money into protecting synagogues and camps.² The ask · 29 wordsInstead of stoking division, Partly on pointand instead of the hollow rhetoric, the opposition should stand with us, protect Jews who are facing unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism and take some action.³

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this answer, 95% addressed the question that was asked.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 92

1 of 2 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “and not with divisive rhetoric.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 97

1 of 2 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 question 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 “Instead of stoking division,”It criticizes the opposition’s rhetoric rather than addressing whether the government’s response meets the moment.

Respect · 100

0 of 2 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 2 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“We have an anti-hate bill that will protect our places of worship, campuses and community centres”The government’s anti-hate bill would protect places of worship, campuses and community centres.search
2“We have put money into protecting synagogues and camps”The government has provided funding for protecting synagogues and camps.search
3“Jews who are facing unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism”Jews in Canada are facing unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20