Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Adam van Koeverden

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-06-04

100 words · 7 sentences · 9 clauses

Replying to Martin Champoux (Bloc Québécois). The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16, as was mentioned earlier. There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government’s approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking. I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this. Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?”

Statement grade

Average 91 / 100

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

Thanks 15%Claims 57%Reasoning 14%The ask 14%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 15 wordsI want to thank the members of the committee for their work on Bill C‑16.¹Thanks Claims · 57 wordsIt is extraordinarily important and serious. We urgently need to find solutions to improve Canada’s justice system.Vague promise We could debate this all summer and into the fall. However, people are urgently awaiting for the legislation to be passed. This is a long-standing issue in the court systems, and as provincial governments are seeking to expedite their processes, Reasoning · 14 wordsand invest in courts and courtrooms, we have an obligation to act as well. The ask · 14 wordsThat expeditious approach, acting urgently, is one that I encourage all members to undertake.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 81

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.

Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I want to thank the members of the committee for their work on Bill C‑16.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 2 deductions are Relevance

The question was off topic, so this reply is judged against the bill.

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 bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 84

1 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We urgently need to find solutions”A commitment to improve the justice system with no actor, measure, date or success condition.

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“the members of the committee for their work on Bill C‑16”A House of Commons committee reviewed Bill C-16 (Protecting Victims Act).search

Analysed on 2026-10-20