Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Bloc Québécois on Government Orders 2026-04-23

126 words · 9 sentences · 11 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, can I get the member’s perspective on the recommendation brought forward by Justice Arbour to do that complete transfer, and can the member acknowledge that there would have been a great deal of effort in coming up with that recommendation? Is it the Bloc party’s position, as it for the Conservatives, that they should just disregard that recommendation?”

Statement grade

B–

Average 71 / 100

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

Positioning 14%Claims 51%Procedure 11%Reasoning 24%

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

Mr. Speaker, Positioning · 12 wordsit never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens.Positioning Claims · 18 wordsHe gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech. Positioning · 6 wordsWe have come to expect it.PositioningOff point Procedure · 11 wordsAs I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice.Procedure Claims · 26 wordsThe amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice.¹ What the amendment said is that not every case needs to be automatically transferred. Reasoning · 30 wordsOur initial response would be to transfer these cases, but if experts and the civilian system consider it advisable to keep them in the military system, that would be allowed. Procedure · 3 wordsThat is all.Procedure Claims · 20 wordsI will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified, ²as she was also invited to do.Off point

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 68

4 of 9 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.

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “We have come to expect it.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “As I said, this is not about complete freedom of choice.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “That is all.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 45

5 of 9 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.

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “it never ceases to amaze me how my colleague opposite never listens.”A jab at the questioner in place of an answer.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “He gets up, walks around, talks and then asks a question that I already answered in my speech.”Complains about the questioner’s conduct rather than answering.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “We have come to expect it.”A dismissive aside, not responsive to the question.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “I will close by saying that Justice Arbour could have come and testified,”Shifts to whether Justice Arbour was invited to testify, a different subject.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “as she was also invited to do.”Continues the aside about the invitation rather than the recommendation asked about.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

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.

Clarity · 100

0 of 9 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“The amendment known as BQ‑2 did not involve complete freedom of choice.”Bloc Québécois amendment BQ-2 to the Military Justice System Modernization Act did not call for complete freedom of choice over whether cases are transferred out of the military justice system.search
2“Justice Arbour could have come and testified”Justice Arbour was invited to testify (and could have come) during the study of the bill.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16