Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Giovanna Mingarelli

Liberal on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

30 words · 3 sentences · 3 clauses

Replying to Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would correct a mistake and improve legal support. I would like to know why the government members voted against that amendment when the rationale behind our proposal was sound and justified.”

Statement grade

–

Not graded

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

Thanks 27%Claims 73%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 8 wordsI thank my colleague for that great question.Thanks Claims · 22 wordsThe bill establishes national standards under the Criminal Code while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The legislation already supports the provincial efforts in question.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for
Didn't answerNone of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 72

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 thank my colleague for that great question.”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 49

2 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.

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 bill establishes national standards under the Criminal Code while respecting provincial jurisdictions.”About the bill’s standards and provincial jurisdiction, not the reasons the amendment was voted down.
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 legislation already supports the provincial efforts in question.”Asserts the legislation supports provincial efforts, offering the bill’s merits rather than why the amendment was rejected.

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 · 100

0 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.

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