Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal on Strong and Free Elections Act 2026-06-11

103 words · 5 sentences · 6 clauses

Replying to Alexis Deschênes (Bloc Québécois)

“Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague. I really enjoyed his answer, and we read the same Supreme Court decision. My question is this: Is he ready to consider increasing the number of federal ridings to ensure that they retain their human scale?”

Statement grade

75 / 100, held down by Relevance

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

Claims 83%Promise 17%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 65 wordsas the member knows, we voted during the last Parliament to protect the number of seats in Quebec and keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78.¹ Parliament has therefore taken concrete measures to ensure Quebec’s representation. Unless I am mistaken, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula that provides for increasing the number of seats after each census and after each redistribution.² Promise · 17 wordsObviously, we will need a day to debate whether a sufficient number of parliamentarians has been reached. Claims · 21 wordsSeats will then have to be redistributed, but that raises a good question and it will certainly have to be debated.Partly on point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 100

0 of 6 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 · 45

6 of 6 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 motion 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 “as the member knows, we voted during the last Parliament to protect the number of seats in Quebec and keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78.”About past votes on the number of Quebec seats, not the bill or the motion before the House.
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 “Parliament has therefore taken concrete measures to ensure Quebec’s representation.”About Quebec’s representation generally, not what Bill C-25 or the motion proposes.
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 “Unless I am mistaken, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula that provides for increasing the number of seats after each census and after each redistribution.”About the redistribution formula under another statute, not 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 “Obviously, we will need a day to debate whether a sufficient number of parliamentarians has been reached.”About future debate on seat counts, not the third reading proceedings set by the motion.
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 “Seats will then have to be redistributed,”About seat redistribution, which the bill does not propose.
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 “but that raises a good question and it will certainly have to be debated.”About future debate on the riding question, not the bill or the motion.

Respect · 100

0 of 6 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 6 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 · 2

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 voted during the last Parliament to protect the number of seats in Quebec and keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78”During the last Parliament, the House voted to keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78.search
2“the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula that provides for increasing the number of seats after each census and after each redistribution”The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula providing for an increase in the number of House of Commons seats after each census and redistribution.search

Analysed on 2026-10-20