Analysis · Reply to a comment · beta

Jessica Fancy

Liberal on Protecting Victims Act 2026-06-09

104 words · 6 sentences · 8 clauses

Replying to Gord Johns (NDP)

“Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague. The main concern that we have been having as New Democrats is that we see the Liberals right now, and they are cutting critical programs that are essential for prevention. They are also letting programs expire. Maybe my colleague can explain how the government expects to reduce violence against women and victims of intimate partner violence when they are cutting the very programs that are critical for prevention. We have heard from the experts time and time again that not only do they need to be maintained, but the investment needs to be increased significantly. It is essential to this conversation.”

Statement grade

A–

Average 88 / 100

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

Thanks 14%Procedure 8%Claims 54%Reasoning 24%

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

Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 15 wordsI also have a lot of admiration and respect for that colleague across the way, ThanksProcedure · 8 wordsbut in this case, I have to challenge.Procedure Claims · 33 wordsWe talked earlier today about mis- and disinformation, and I feel that this is a case of misinformation. We know that some of the projects and funding streams that we have will sunset.Unearned certainty Reasoning · 25 wordsThat does not mean that they go away. That means that they get reinvigorated as we pass bills in the House within our economic budget. Claims · 23 wordsI would like to say, regarding the member’s question, that it is part of our economic strategy each time we re-fund these programs.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 73

2 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 also have a lot of admiration and respect for that colleague across the way,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “but in this case, I have to challenge.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 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 comment put to the member, and the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

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 · 78

1 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.

Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.What the tags mean “We know that”Asserts certainty in place of a source for the claim about funding sunsets.

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