Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Bloc Québécois on Government Orders 2026-04-23

186 words · 9 sentences · 13 clauses

Replying to Tim Watchorn (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence with me. I think that today we are talking about victims. We are talking about the issue of victims’ trust in a justice system. I would like my colleague to talk about the 14,000 victims who testified before Justice Arbour that they did not trust the military system. Since 2022, all sexual abuse cases under the Criminal Code have been tried in civilian court, and that arrangement is working. Why could it not continue to work?”

Statement grade

A–

Average 89 / 100

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

Aside 22%The question 37%Reasoning 19%Procedure 2%Claims 20%

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

Mr. Speaker, Aside · 41 wordsI would answer the question with a question. I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question. Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House, because nothing lasts forever.AsideOff point The question · 54 wordsWhat does my colleague have to say to the victims, the victims’ associations, the Barreau du Québec and the experts who told us that they were in favour of allowing cases to be transferred to the civilian justice system, but not at all costs? It may be suitable for some cases, but not all. Reasoning · 35 wordsI understand that complete freedom of choice is not necessarily the right option for the sole reason that not everyone always has the information and there can still be things like manipulation behind the scenes. Procedure · 4 wordsWe agree on that.Procedure Claims · 38 wordsHowever, BQ‑2, which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem.¹ The question · 14 wordsWhat does my colleague have to say to the victims who came to testify?

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 67

5 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.

A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “I would answer the question with a question.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “I am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House,”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
A remark off to the side of the point.What the tags mean “because nothing lasts forever.”An aside: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “We agree on that.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

4 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 “I would answer the question with a question.”Declaring an intent to answer a question with a question dodges what was asked.
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 am going to do what the Liberals do during question period and answer with a question.”A partisan jab about Liberal question period tactics 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 “Someday it will be their turn to ask questions in the House,”A political aside about future turns asking questions, not the issue raised.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “because nothing lasts forever.”A rhetorical flourish about nothing lasting forever that does not address the bill or question.

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 · 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“which was adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on the committee, would have made it possible to determine, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, that certain matters were best left to the military justice ssytem.”Amendment BQ-2, adopted by a majority of the committee, would have allowed certain matters to be determined, on the recommendation of civilian court experts, to be best left to the military justice system.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16