Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Juanita Nathan

Liberal on Government Orders 2026-06-10

83 words · 3 sentences · 3 clauses

Replying to Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois)

“Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague. Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment. This is an important issue, particularly for victims.”

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.

Claims 100%

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

Madam Speaker, Claims · 83 wordscriminal harassment is a very big and important part of the bill. The bill would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim’s fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened, thereby removing the victim’s need to testify.¹ This would allow victims to better trust our system and ensure that the proposed offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology.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 · 100

0 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.

Nothing lost points.

Relevance · 46

3 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 “criminal harassment is a very big and important part of the bill.”It notes criminal harassment is in the bill but does not address peace bonds or the objective criteria asked about.
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 would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim’s fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened, thereby removing the victim’s need to testify.”It describes the bill’s criminal harassment amendment but does not address the peace bond question or why objective criteria were refused.
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 “This would allow victims to better trust our system and ensure that the proposed offence captures harassing conduct committed through modern technology.”It speaks to expected benefits of the harassment amendment, not the question about peace bonds and objective criteria.

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 · 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“would remove the subjective requirement to prove a victim’s fear for their safety and replace it with the requirement to prove that the harassing conduct could reasonably be expected to cause a victim to believe that their safety is threatened”Bill C-16 would remove the requirement to prove that a victim of criminal harassment subjectively feared for their safety and replace it with a requirement to prove that the conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe their safety was threatened.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20