Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Pierre Paul-Hus

Conservative on Government Orders 2026-04-23

153 words · 10 sentences · 16 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Conservatives have really thought the amendments through. What they are doing is making the suggestion that we should have a dual system, one that provides a choice. Justice Arbour would no doubt have reviewed that particular option. She has done her homework in the consultations, in working with literally hundreds of victims and others, to come up with a recommendation that clearly states it should be a civilian system. My question for the Conservative Party, in particular this member, is this: Is Justice Arbour wrong in her recommendation?”

Statement grade

60 / 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 63%Procedure 10%Reasoning 27%

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

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 30 wordsit would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come.¹ She did not come to explain her report.Off point Procedure · 1 wordsObviously, ProcedureUnearned certaintyReasoning · 26 wordsif the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Claims · 15 wordsEither she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. Procedure · 14 wordsI do not know which it was.Off point In any case, our position remains clear, ProcedureClaims · 51 wordsand the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment.²Off point The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues. Reasoning · 16 wordsIn that context, keeping the military system as an option was the best course of action.

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 86

3 of 13 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.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Obviously,”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 “I do not know which it was.”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 “In any case, our position remains clear,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 30

9 of 13 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 would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee,”Wishes Arbour had appeared at committee rather than addressing whether her recommendation is right.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “but she refused to come.”Criticises her declining to testify, which is not an answer to the question put.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “She did not come to explain her report.”Restates her non-appearance at committee instead of the merits of the recommendation.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things.”Speculates about what committee questioning might have changed 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 “Either she did not want to come,”Speculates about why she stayed away instead of addressing the recommendation.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “or the government advised her not to come.”Suggests the government kept her away, a political point 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 “I do not know which it was.”Concedes not knowing about her absence rather than answering 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 “and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us.”Reports which party agrees instead of arguing the merits of the recommendation.
Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.What the tags mean “In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment.”Credits another party with the amendment rather than addressing the question or the bill’s merits.

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

1 of 13 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 “Obviously,”The word asserts self-evidence for a counterfactual scenario no one can verify.

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“she refused to come”Justice Arbour refused an invitation to appear before the committee studying the Military Justice System Modernization Act to explain her report.search
2“it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment”The Bloc Québécois proposed the amendment to keep the military justice system as an option in the Military Justice System Modernization Act.search

Analysed on 2026-09-16